Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Middle East

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the peace process in the middle east.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution towards finding a diplomatic and peaceful solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in promoting peace in the middle east.

Mr. Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends submitting any fresh proposals aimed at resolving the middle east problem; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Waldegrave): We support the efforts being made to establish direct contact between Israel and a representative Palestinian delegation as an important step towards an overall settlement.

Mr. Latham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his appointment to the Privy Council.
Does not peace require a three-stage operation comprising, as my right hon. Friend said, an early meeting to take on board the Mubarak, Baker, Shamir proposals; elections on the West Bank and Gaza; and full negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians, obviously involving the Palestine Liberation Organisation, for a final settlement based on United Nations resolution 242?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words.
My hon. Friend has it exactly right when he says that ultimately, a multilateral peace conference will be needed. However, I was very pleased at a meeting with Bassam Abu Sharif of the PLO earlier this week to find that he was

clear in his mind that the first important step is direct contact with the Israeli Government. Therefore, I support the order of events that my hon. Friend described.

Mr. Townsend: In a distinguished speech on 18 October last, my right hon. Friend stated that resentment in the occupied territories was growing and that there was no way that the Israeli authorities could suppress the aspirations of the people of those territories. Presuming that my right hon. Friend still believes that that is so, will he explain to the Israeli authorities without ceasing that it is very much in the interests of Israel itself to work quickly for a speedy solution of this long outstanding problem?

Mr. Waldegrave: I certainly still hold the views that. I expressed last October. I must place on record that the Israeli Government's latest step, which is to restrict the travel of a number of key Palestinian leaders at this particular moment, is most unfortunate. Powerful voices have been raised in Israel itself in support of the views expressed by my hon. Friend, and I hope that they will carry the day in due course.

Mr. Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if meaningful progress is to be made, sufficient pressure must be placed on the Israeli Government by the Americans, so that the objectives that we all seek can be achieved?

Mr. Waldegrave: The American President arid Secretary of State, and the American Government, are fully engaged in the process that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) described earlier, and they are serious about bringing together in face-to-face talks for the first time representatives of the Israeli Government and a delegation from the Palestinians. It is right that they should do so. I believe that the Israelis are finding, perhaps to their surprise, that the Americans are serious in their diplomacy—which we strongly support.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the Minister join other right hon. and hon. Members in condemning the activities of the Israeli police in breaking up the peaceful demonstration in Jerusalem by 3,000 women on 29 December and by 15,000 Palestinians, Israelis and Europeans on 30 December—all of whom were endorsing a negotiated peace settlement? They should surely not have been attacked with night sticks, tear gas, rubber bullets and percussion bombs.

Mr. Waldegrave: We join the hon. Gentleman, as do many right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, in condemning the events to which he refers. They reinforce our belief that speed is of the essence in getting the negotiating process under way before yet more bitterness is created.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that the only route to a peaceful solution in the middle east, which is something that we all want, lies in the consent of both parties? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with both sides and demonstrate that he understands the very real anxieties, worries and suspicions of the Israelis in respect of the PLO, which has been the Israelis' terrorist enemy for so long that it is difficult for them to make that organisation a partner in a peace process?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that anyone should underestimate the difficulties for the Israelis, and the courage and the vision of those people in Israel who have


taken steps to move forwards. Soon after I took office the hon. Gentleman gave me a book by Mr. Amos Oz, which sets out the fears and visions of what is possible. If only his vision were that of the Israeli Government.

Mr. Galloway: Is the Minister aware that one of the prominent individuals to whom he referred earlier who has been banned from travel, is Dr. Faisal Husseini? Anyone who knows anything about the area knows that Dr. Husseini's standing is such that he is indispensable to the peace process. Will the Minister join the United States of America's State Department utterly to condemn the decision to preclude him from overseas travel for the next three months or from any travel in the West Bank or Gaza, as that is a setback to any hope for a negotiated settlement in the area?

Mr. Waldegrave: I join the hon. Gentleman to make the condemnation that he asks for. I used words that I hope were fairly strong earlier today. I have talked with Dr. Husseini on several occasions and he is bound to be an indispensable part of any peace process, as are a number of other people who are under a travel ban, including some senior trade unionists.

Sir Dennis Walters: Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress towards a peace settlement remains painfully slow? In the meantime, conditions on the West Bank remain appalling. The PLO leadership, under Mr. Arafat in particular over the past few years, has shown great patience and statemanship. Is it not time for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to have a meeting with Mr. Arafat?

Mr. Waldegrave: When I met Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif on Monday I said, and I hope that I represent the majority of opinion in the House, that we support the tenacity with which the Palestinian leadership has stuck to its negotiating mandate. The longer that it sticks to that, and the more it resists any return to the methods of terrorism, the greater the moral force it gains for its cause. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary takes the same stance as both his predecessors, with whom I worked on this issue, and if a meeting between him and Mr. Arafat would take things forward, he would have a meeting, but meetings for meetings' sake are not our style.

Mr. Kaufman: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Privy Council. Is he aware that when Mr. Rabin wisely released Dr. Husseini from prison, that was a signal for moderate Palestinians that dialogue was available? Only a few weeks ago, at an international conference in Milan, Dr. Husseini was engaged in discussions with among others, General Dayan's daughter, who is one of the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who wish to achieve peace through dialogue with the Palestinians. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform Mr. Shamir that no amount of manoeuvring within the Israeli Cabinet for internal party political advantage will stop Israel having to talk to the Palestinians in the end? The Israeli Labour party has wisely recognised that fact by accepting the proposals of President Mubarak and the principles of Mr. Baker. Will the Government do everything possible to make it clear to the Likud section of the Israeli Government that they are standing against history?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind words. He has summarised the truth eloquently. There is no question but that, at this moment of all moments, when we may be approaching the first face-to-face talks between genuine Palestinian representatives and the Israeli Government, to put those kinds of restrictions on moderate leaders of the Palestinian side is foolish in the extreme.

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you tell us whether it is in order for a Minister to engage in multiple linking of questions? It restricts the number of Back Benchers who can be called to ask supplementaries. Following the linking of four questions dealing with what is obviously the most popular topic for today, only one Back Bencher has been called per three questions, and none of the others have been called at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is up to the Minister concerned to decide whether questions are linked. I have given the previous question a fair run, and there are others on the Order Paper, on which the hon. Gentleman may well be called.

Arms Control

Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arms control negotiations he is presently involved in; what stage each has reached; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The United Kingdom joins in the two sets of conventional arms control negotiations taking place in Vienna, and in the chemical weapons negotiations at Geneva. All three are making progress; in particular, we hope that the negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe—the CFE talks—will meet our ambitious target of agreement during this year. I shall be attending a conference in Ottawa in February, following up the initiative taken at last year's NATO summit to promote an open-skies agreement.

Mr. Jack: My right hon. Friend's response bears impressive testimony to the strength and resolution shown by the Government and their allies on defence matters. Does he agree that, had Conservative Members listened to the CND apologists on the Opposition Benches, he could not have made that response?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is quite right—what is producing these results is strength followed by negotiation. We have shown the strength, and we are now gaining the benefits of the negotiation.

Mr. Cohen: Is not there some dispute over the specification of weapons to be included in the arms control talks? Has not the Soviet Union accused the West of dragging its feet, particularly in its failure to include dual-capable—that is, nuclear-capable—aircraft in the talks?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is a good bit out of date. A plentiful programme of work for the CFE negotiations still lies ahead and there is hard work still to be done, which is why the Canadians have suggested that, among other things, we should review progress at the Ottawa conference and establish whether any obstacles


can be removed. Nevertheless, although some arguing remains to be done, I think that we are on course for an agreement this year.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I welcome the political developments in eastern Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation is fluid and potentially dangerous? Although Warsaw pact countries such as Czechoslovakia may demand the withdrawal of Soviet troops from their territories, as happened yesterday, it is surely in the interests of NATO, of this country and of Europe generally to resist reciprocal demands by the Soviets for the withdrawal of British and French troops from West Germany.

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree, and no such demends have been received.

Mr. Kaufman: When discussing stages in disarmament negotiations—to which this question refers—the Prime Minister said yesterday that negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons would
be considered when the agreements on reductions in conventional arms have been completed."—[Official Report, 9 January 1990, Vol. 164, c. 814.]
Last spring's NATO declaration, however, made it clear that negotiations on short-range nuclear weapons could begin as soon as the conventional arms reductions had begun. Why does the Prime Minister not tell the truth to the House?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is nit-picking. The comprehensive concept—to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was referring, and to which the right hon. Gentleman also clearly refers—is not in dispute; the allies are all agreed on it, and we are all adhering to it.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I welcome the progress in the talks at Vienna and elsewhere. Will my right hon. Friend nevertheless suggest to our NATO allies that they do not proceed too fast with reducing their own defence commitments? Britain—and, outside NATO, France—will maintain their own readiness while there is still uncertainty in the wider Europe; many of our allies in NATO, however, are already showing that, far from meeting the 3 per cent. target, they are dropping further behind.

Mr. Hurd: There is great advantage, when one is thinking of any reductions in defence spending or defence equipment, in continuing to hold negotiations on balanced and agreed reductions.

Nicaragua

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions are being taken by Her Majesty's ambassador in Managua to observe the elections in Nicaragua.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): Her Majesty's ambassador and the chargé d'affaires will continue to monitor the election process carefully. They will also offer whatever assistance is necessary to our official observer, Dr. David Browning.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that a crucial factor in ensuring fair elections in Nicaragua is that the constant intimidation of that country by the United States

should cease? Will he take this opportunity publicly to declare unequivocally his condemnation of the attack on the Nicaraguan embassy in Panama by the United States?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman's reference to the intimidation of Nicaragua by the United States. He will be aware that the United States Government have apologised for the incident involving Nicaraguan property in Panama. I hope that he accepts that one of the important aspects in ensuring free and fair elections in Nicaragua is equal opportunity on the media being provided to both parties. He will be aware that the United Nations observers have said that the amount of bias towards the governing party and the attacks on its potential rivals have exceeded all reasonable bounds.

Mr. Norris: Does not my hon. Friend share with me a certain scepticism about the forthcoming electoral process in Nicaragua, based on the transparent inability of the Sandinista regime to separate itself as between government and party? That is demonstrated beyond peradventure by the way in which the Sandinistas dominate the electoral tribunal in Nicaragua and the Sandinista regime has suppressed opposition both on television and in the press in that country. Does he share with me a certain wry amusement at my experience when, having been in Nicaragua to look at the electoral process there, I then went to Panama to witness General Noriega's little election in May of last year and found that one of the few officials whom the general could find to legitimise his election process was a member of the electoral tribunal in Nicaragua?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend has considerable experience and personal knowledge of these matters. He is right to draw attention to the constitutional anomaly, that the Sandinista party continues to exercise a constitutional monopoly of power over the army and all state apparatus. I hope that the Opposition do not find that a laughing matter.

Mr. Flannery: Was not the attack on the Nicaraguan embassy in Panama quite disgraceful and did not the President of the United States apologise for it? Nicaragua is being permanently attacked by the Contras who are being given money by the United States for that purpose. Is not an attack on an entire country even more odious than an attack on that country's embassy in another country?

Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman seems reluctant to recognise that the situation has changed. The United States Government ceased to give military aid to the Contras a very long time ago. They have also undertaken to withdraw humanitarian aid from any Contras who are found to be involved in military action.

Eastern Europe

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to assist East European countries.

Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to Poland in its efforts to restructure its economy and build up democratic institutions.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are already providing direct financial and other assistance to Poland and Hungary. On 2 January we made a grant of $100 million to the international stabilisation fund for Poland. We are looking carefully at the requirements of other East European countries, and my right hon. Friend and I will be visiting a number of them in the coming weeks. We will respond positively to these countries as they put in place political and economic reforms.

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's reply. However, as Socialism and collectivism have destroyed the economies of these East European countries, surely the best thing that we could do would be to give advice to them on how to create a liberal market economy, perhaps through a programme drawn up by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who is such an outstandingly able proponent of privatisation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that German reunification would not help to create stability in central Europe?

Mr. Waldegrave: The central part of my hon. Friend's remarks are quite correct. The Polish Government and others have made it quite clear that the last thing they want is statist and Socialist economies to advise them. They want to be told how to set up proper market economies. My hon. Friend may know friends of his and mine who can do that with a Scottish accent, and so much the better.

Mr. Maples: Does my right hon. Friend agree that private investment by western commercial companies will be an immense help to Poland and other eastern European countries in developing their economies? What help and encouragement are the Government providing in that process?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the perennial demands put to us, for example by Mr. Walesa when he was here, is for private investment. We are now helping the Polish Government in particular, and also the Hungarian Government, with the liberalisation of their economies, with privatisation and the establishment of capital markets. That is what they are seeking. The Opposition see despairingly the remains of their philosophy fading away.

Mr. Madden: In responding to the undoubted wish of the vast majority of British people for the British Government to help the democratic process in eastern Europe, will the Minister give a clear assurance that no British industry, especially the textile industry, will be regarded as expendable nor will the jobs of large numbers of British textile workers be regarded as expendable by our Government turning a blind eye to flagrant dumping by eastern European textile industries?

Mr. Waldegrave: As defined under the international regulations, dumping is not permissible. However, I urge the House and the hon. Gentleman not to protect our own market. The best thing we can do for countries trying to join world trade is to open our markets for the benefit of our consumers and for their future.

Mr. Faulds: Is not a realistic assessment of the situation in eastern European countries the fact that a concerted European effort is needed along the lines of the Marshall plan? If the economies of those countries are not helped to work, democratisation will not work in those countries.

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis but perhaps not with the analogy of the Marshall plan as in some countries all the stock and investment was physically destroyed and had to be replaced in short order. The connection that the hon. Gentleman makes between freedom, democracy and the free market is right and his analysis of this issue would make him welcome on this side of the House.

Mr. Soames: I thank my right hon. Friend for the generous increased grant in aid that his Department has given to eastern Europe. Does he agree that cultural links will be very important in the next few years? Will he assure the House that he will do what he can to encourage those links which are so vital to increased understanding on both sides?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the principal demands we are getting from all those countries is for English language teaching. It is the privilege and the luck of this country that all those countries consider English to be the language of freedom, so there is much that we can do not only in high culture, but in the practical aspect of English language teaching.

Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition join in the celebration of the movement to democracy, the rejection of Stalinist communism throughout eastern Europe, and especially the return of Romania from a particularly foul dictatorship since the House last met? Surely it is time for a more appropriately generous and comprehensive aid plan to be designed for the newly democratised countries of eastern Europe. Surely the Government could take a lead in bringing together the rich western countries to establish appropriate aid and the sizeable imaginative package which is required and which alone will safeguard and consolidate the movement to democracy where it was once crushed and repressed. What will the Government do to relieve the COCOM restrictions, the justifications for which are disappearing every day? What will happen about offers of future European Community membership to those countries that are still part of the European continent and which are now aspiring to membership in future?

Mr. Waldegrave: I note that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends welcome the steps that have been taken towards freedom. I further note from a debate in the House that even his few Trotskyite colleagues welcome the overthrowing of the Stalinist regimes—but I do not want to engage in that debate. The hon. Gentleman is a little out of date on the scale of what is being done by the West. Britain alone will contribute about £250 million to Poland this year, and in the past few days the Japanese Prime Minister has announced further measures. Britain took the lead in the European Community and in the Group of 24 to co-ordinate the measures that are now being taken on a massive scale. The hon. Gentleman asked about COCOM, but that is irrelevant. Do Poland and Hungary need to import carbon technologies? No, they need food and basic infrastructure. We should retain that basic military insurance for much longer.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend recall that a number of eastern European countries have been granted guest membership status of the Council of


Europe? Will he support further applications by eastern European countries, as that must be a positive step to help them on the road to democracy?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer is a clear yes, as long as the criteria are met. I agree with my hon. Friend that the criteria for membership should not be watered down, but if they are met we should welcome new members.

Mr. Charles Powell

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Mr. Charles Powell to return to his Department.

Mr. Sainsbury: In due course.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister a question of which I have given him notice? Do Ministers believe Sir Leon Brittan when he asserts that Mr. Powell approved the leaking of legal advice to the Government? Will Ministers do anything about an article in yesterday's Evening Standard, which said "Leon pays Westland debts" and in which it was asserted that there was some kind of a pay-off for—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Mr. Charles Powell. Will the hon. Gentleman come to order?

Mr. Dalyell: The fundamental question is this. Is it not highly undesirable that civil servants should be involved in political lying?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his question. Despite that, I must tell him that this is not a matter for me. I have nothing to add to the numerous statements and answers to questions from the hon. Gentleman by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning outright this continuing and disgraceful pursuit of a loyal and devoted public servant?

Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly.

Iraq (Arrests)

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Iraqi authorities over the arrest and detention of Farzad Bazoft and Daphne Parish.

Mr. Waldegrave: We have made over 40 separate ministeral and diplomatic representations to the Iraqi authorities and Iraqi Ministers on these cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised the matter with the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, on 22 December in Paris. Consular access was finally given to Mrs. Parish on 4 December. She was also seen on 22 December by her daughter, accompanied by embassy officials. The Iraqis have now agreed to Mrs. Parish receiving legal representation. We continue to press for formal notification of any charges against her.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there are disturbing reasons for believing that the purpose of the Iraqi authorities was to prevent Mr. Bazoft, who is

a journalist, from investigating the reasons for the explosion at Al Iskanderia, which the Iraqi Government wish to sweep under the table? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sanctions the Government have in mind if these people are not released?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Mr. Bazoft was engaged in attempting to make a journalistic scoop which in our country would have been legitimate even if his methods were dangerous in terms of Iraq. Our duty, first to Mrs. Parish as one of our citizens and to him on humanitarian grounds, because he was travelling on British travel documents, is to see that they are given legal representation and consular access and that the processes of justice are brought to bear as soon as possible. That is the object of our efforts.

Mr. Marlow: I wonder whether it would be helpful to my right hon. Friend to put the matter in the context of 1946. If, after a long and bloody war someone connected with the enemy had been seen or was thought to have been seen spying in a sensitive area, should we have been sensitive about it? Will he also bear in mind the fact that we have important relationships and common purposes with Iraq?

Mr. Waldegrave: Our objective is to see that the two people in question are given legal representation, that charges are brought so that they can answer them and that they are given a fair trial.
I remind my hon. Friend of different traditions in this matter. In 1913 a German naval officer was discovered sketching defences at Portsmouth. He was arrested and bound over to keep the peace for a year.

Khmer Rouge

Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom policy towards the Khmer Rouge.

Mr. Hurd: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) on 8 November in which I made plain the Government's repugnance for the Khmer Rouge and set out our policy towards Cambodia.

Mr. Evans: Following the recently reported attack on the Cambodian capital Pnomh Penh by Pol Pot's forces, will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that he will support the Australian peace plan when he meets his Security Council colleagues in Paris next week? Will he also inform them that he is utterly opposed to the Khmer Rouge playing any part in a future Government of Cambodia?

Mr. Hurd: I have seen no report of a military attack on Pnomh Penh. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the interest and importance of the Australian proposal, which would give the United Nations a substantial role in running Cambodia while long-term arrangements were made. I have discussed it with the Australian Foreign Minister and several of my other colleagues. When the representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council meet in Paris this week, our representative will make clear our strong interest in the proposal.

Mr. Lester: Although I accept totally my right hon. Friend's condemnation of the Khmer Rouge, what it stands for and what it did in Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, would it not he more helpful to the aim of reaching a settlement and encouraging the Australian peace initiative to recognise that the Cambodian Government, certainly within the past three or four years, have done a good job in difficult circumstances? Should we not strike a balance between condemnation of the Khmer Rouge and recognition that there is a Government in Cambodia who have worked hard in the best interests of the Cambodian people?

Mr. Hurd: I know my hon. Friend's view. He also knows that there is still widespread resentment and suspicion of the way in which Vietnam imposed that Government on Cambodia. The Vietnamese have withdrawn their Government troops from Cambodia and that has changed the position. That is why we sent a team to Cambodia recently. It had a successful mission as a result of which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced our new humanitarian projects in Cambodia. From that process and the progress made arose the Australian initiative and the meeting of the permament representatives of the Security Council in which we shall take part.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a useful role for China in the affairs of Cambodia? Might such a role have the agreeable side-effect of that country showing to the world that it is prepared to make some amends for the appalling events in Tiananmen square in June last year?

Mr. Hurd: I agree that the role of China is extremely important in this matter. Its representative will be present at the meeting in Paris and I hope that China will take note of my hon. Friend's points.

Mr. Foulkes: The Foreign Secretary is reported today as hinting at a policy shift towards Cambodia. In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) he said that the Government are interested in the Australian proposal. Will he not come out openly today and say that Britain will abandon its support for the Khmer Rouge, which is totally indefensible? Will he also clearly say that, at the meeting in Paris on Tuesday, our representative will support the Australian proposal, the Soviet proposal for an arms moratorium and the ceasefire proposal? If the five permanent members of the Security Council are unanimous on this it will be a significant step forward in bringing peace to a country that has suffered for far too long.

Mr. Hurd: In his rhetoric, the hon. Gentleman has not noticed what is going on. I have updated our policy and I announced it to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe on 8 November. I have just repeated the changes that have been made. I believe that there can be further updating by bringing our western friends and our friends in south-east Asia forward together. I would much rather do that as I believe that moving together is the best way in which we can help, as much as outsiders can, to bring peace to Cambodia.

EC Budget

Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the United Kingdom's likely net contribution to the European Community budget in (a) 1989 and (b) 1990.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): The latest estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EC budget in 1989, published in the statement on the 1989 Community budget last April, was £1,966 million. An outturn figure for 1989 and an estimate for 1990 will be published in the statement on the 1990 Community budget.

Mr. Marlow: I did not catch the second figure that my hon. Friend gave, but if I got it right, I believe the first figure for the full year was about £2,000 million. That is a heck of a lot of bread, if I can put it like that. As we are net receivers of excess European manufactures and net importers of excess European agricultural produce, and despite the fact that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done a magnificent job in getting some of our money back, is it reasonable that we should be spending £2,000 million a year of our taxpayers' money to subsidise those Europeans who seem to do nothing but insult us? Can we not take further action now to get more of our money back?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend may think that there are those in the Community who insult us, but my hon. Friend is well capable of holding up our end on this, and perhaps that is valuable. My hon. Friend drew attention to the advances made because of the deal negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. By the end of this year there will have been an abatement of about £7·5 billion since the Fontainebleau agreement in 1984. That is a considerable achievement, and it represents a substantial reduction in the net contribution. We are by no means the largest net contributor to the Community budget and, at this stage, there are two other contributors. We must maintain our vigilance, however, to ensure that the size of the Community budget does not rise unreasonably.

Mr. Leighton: Is it not the case that many EC countries pay nothing into the budget whereas Britain, one of the poorer nations, has to pay grotesquely large sums—something like £2 billion—to subsidise richer countries? Would the Minister care to imagine what we could do with that £2 billion in the National Health Service? Even after all the rebates, when will the Government take steps to stop us acting as Lady Bountiful with British taxpayers' money?

Mr. Maude: Such criticism comes ill from the hon. Gentleman, as it was negotiation by the previous Labour Government which led to the net contribution by the United Kingdom. Only the firm stance taken by this Government in the earlier part of last decade led to that appalling legacy of incompetence being substantially reduced.

Mrs. Currie: The European Community is set to change considerably if associate status is offered to the newly democratic countries of eastern Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of these are poor countries and will need a great deal of help? Has any thought yet been


given to the effect on the United Kingdom's likely net contribution during the 1990s as Europe is widened to include the newly democratic countries?

Mr. Maude: No one is suggesting that in the early part of the 1990s there is any question of the European Community being enlarged to accommodate reforming countries from eastern Europe. Co-operation agreements are being negotiated with other countries. Earlier this afternoon the House heard about some of the financial contributions that are very properly being made by the European Community to eastern European countries. I assure my hon. Friend that this country's net contribution should not increase, and because the Community's budget has remained substantially within the ceilings negotiated at the Brussels Council in 1988, the net contribution should be reduced in subsequent years.

Mr. Anderson: As democratic centralism and purges end in central and eastern Europe, is there not a danger of the same democratic centralism and purges being reasserted in the Conservative party? Has the Minister noted the recent article by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) suggesting that if Tory Members of the European Parliament do not toe the Prime Minister's little England line on the Community and the Community budget, they may have to leave the party? Does he approve of that view?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman tries hard, but to little effect. His words come a little oddly just after one of his hon. Friends expressed an ultimately little Englander view. He tries hard but he does not cut any ice. In the Conservative party we have a firm view about the sort of Europe that we want to develop—an open, liberal European Community based on co-operation between friendly states. That will remain the case.

Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend consider that an annual net contribution to the Community of £2 billion is too much, too little or about right? Is it not true that if the vaulting ambitions of the supra-nationalists had been restricted and the Community had devoted itself only to the free movement of people, goods and capital in the member states, this massive contribution would have been dramatically reduced?

Mr. Maude: Undoubtedly one of the principal causes of the large Community budget which has led to the United Kingdom's net contribution has been the common agricultural policy, and that is well understood. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was carrying out the negotiations which led to such a substantial and dramatic reduction in our contribution, plenty of Opposition Members were prepared to decry her efforts. I am glad that she stuck firmly to her purpose and succeeded so well.

US Secretary of State

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the United States Secretary of State: and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Hurd: I last met the United States Secretary of State on 14 and 15 December at the North Atlantic Treaty

Organisation meeting in Brussels. Secretary Baker also called on me in London on 11 December, when we discussed a wide range of issues.

Mr. Winnick: Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to discuss the appalling and brutal murders of the six priests in El Salvador? They were undoubtedly carried out, as has now been confirmed, by members of the military force, some of whom were American-trained. Does President Bush intend to send in an invasion force to bring about the rule of law in El Salvador? How many detectives from Scotland Yard have gone out? What is their brief and precisely what will they report back to the British Government?

Mr. Hurd: I have not discussed that matter with the American Secretary of State. We have been glad to accede to the request for help in clearing up these atrocities. The team consists of three Metropolitan police officers who are helping the local authorities in the pursuit of justice.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the striking and attractive features of the new, more articulate and better-educated American Government is their enthusiastic commitment to Britain's full participation in the processes of developing the European Community?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, I think that the renewed United States enthusiasm for development in Europe is correct, particularly as the Americans have made it clear that they are not seeking to intervene in the discussions in the Community about what sort of Community it should become, and are placing their emphasis, as we do, on completion of the single market and the achievement of a liberal and open trading system.

Mr. Mullin: Has the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity to put it to the American Secretary of State that it might be a good idea if the United States called off the Vietnam war and ended its trade and aid embargo of Vietnam, with a view perhaps to stopping the flow of refugees from that country?

Mr. Hurd: I have discussed the whole question of the boat people with Mr. Baker and I shall do so again when, as I hope, I visit Washington at about the end of the month. I very much hope that at the steering committee meeting on the boat people in Geneva, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, will be held next week, we shall find the international community—perhaps with some help from the United States—moving on from the position that it took last June. That was not in itself sufficient to deal with what I regard as the major danger—a new onrush into Hong Kong of people from Vietnam during the spring and summer.

Sir Peter Blaker: On that point, has my right hon. Friend expressed to the American Secretary of State the surprise and indignation of many Conservative right hon. and hon. Members at the United States' high moral line on the compulsory return of the Vietnamese illegal immigrants from Hong Kong, at a time when the United States is returning illegal immigrants daily to many countries, including Mexico, and to Haiti, to which it has returned 20,000 boat people within the past year with much less careful screening to determine whether they are


genuine refugees than is carried out in Hong Kong? Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of an improvement in American logic?

Mr. Hurd: Points similar to those made by my right hon. Friend have been put repeatedly to the United States, and I believe that the reaction in the United States to the repatriation of the planeload of 51 to Vietnam was a good deal more moderate than some of us had expected. Certainly, there is increasing understanding within the United States Administration of what we are trying to achieve and why, and of why we and Hong Kong deserve more understanding and help from the international community than has so far been received.

Eastern Europe

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Jacques Delors regarding the current situation in eastern Europe.

Mr. Hurd: I have had a number of such discussions recently with Mr. Delors. The subject, as the hon. Member knows, was also discussed at the Strasbourg European Council and the ministerial meeting of the Group of 24 on 13 December.

Sir Russell Johnston: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. I am sure that he will agree that none of the changes in the East would have been possible without Gorbachev. Will he tell Mr. Delors and his colleagues in the European Council of Ministers that we must all think about helping not only the newly democratised countries in central Europe but the Soviet Union? Gorbachev is in trouble and it is in our and everyone's interests to help him.

Mr. Hurd: The credit does not go solely to Mr. Gorbachev; it must also go to the countries of the West, Europe and the United States, which stood firm at a time when the Communist dictatorships seemed impregnable. That needs to be recorded. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has often said, we certainly believe that it is in the interests of the West that Mr. Gorbachev should succeed with perestroika. But his problems cannot be solved to any major extent by financial aid from this country or from the West. His problems are essentially those of nationalities within the Soviet Union and of an economy that is drifting downhill because of its basic nature, which needs to be changed.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of drawing to Mr. Delors' attention the work on the development of representative institutions of eastern Europe, which has been facilitated by the British Government, the Great Britain-East European Centre and the Inter-Parliamentary Union? Does he agree that that work has been recognised by all sides as immensely valuable? Will he encourage such activity within the Community?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly will. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in and leadership of such ventures. The contribution that Britain can most aptly make to those countries as they move towards free institutions is to show them, through many relevant projects and in many different ways, how to erect free institutions, free media

and free elections, and how to move from a command economy to a market economy. That is why we have put such emphasis on the know-how funds that we have set up for Poland and Hungary.

Mr. Nellist: Before the Secretary of State has any further discussions with Jaques Delors, will he first talk to the Secretary of State for Defence, who yesterday, in a disgraceful outburst, donned his Captain America uniform and claimed that he alone was saving the world for peace and democracy? Will he ask him to show some regard for the millions who demonstrated in Leipzig, Bucharest, Budapest and Prague, and those who lost their lives in Romania? Will he tell the Minister of State, who is sitting next to him, that those whom he disparagingly regards as Trotskyites are those who, for the past five or six decades, have explained that there cannot be Socialism without democracy, just as one cannot be a human being without oxygen? It is as justifiable to call what happened under the dictatorship of Stalin "eastern Europe Socialism" as it would be to call what happened under the Spanish Inquisition "Christianity".

Mr. Hurd: I am having a little difficulty following the hon. Gentleman's logic, but it appears to be deeply defensive stuff. Political and economic freedom go hand-in-hand; neither survives well without the other. That is the lesson that the peoples of eastern Europe are teaching their former rulers.

European Foreign Policies

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend an informal meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve in Dublin on 20 January. The Irish Presidency is convening this meeting to allow an early exchange of views on developments in eastern Europe.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend confirm that greater co-operation on foreign policy within the Community is still the major objective of the Government's foreign policy, as it was when the previous Foreign Secretary was in office?

Mr. Maude: We have said on many occasions that the European Community is central to our foreign policy. We regard the growth of a common foreign policy among the Twelve as one of the great successes of the European Community in recent years.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Although the Government expressed some reservations, I congratulate them on the unanimous adoption of a resolution during the United Nations special session on South Africa in December. What steps have the Government taken, in conjunction with their European counterparts, to end political trials and executions in South Africa? Will they call for the release of all political detainees, as was stated in the resolution that was unanimously accepted?

Mr. Maude: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Twelve made their position perfectly clear. Frequent representations are made, and it is encouraging that some notice appears to have been taken of them.

Namibia

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current relations with Namibia.

Mr. Waldegrave: We are delighted by progress towards successful completion of the United Nations plan for Namibia and look forward to close relations with an independent Namibia.

Mr. Hayward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply. Does the United Nations have any further plans in relation to Namibia in terms of progress through and beyond independence and democratic government?

Mr. Waldegrave: It will be for the countries that regard themselves, as we do, as friends of independent Namibia to help in the future. I am happy to say that, next week, in response to requests from Namibia, we will be sending a Ministry of Defence technical advisory team to assess the

requirements for establishing and training an army for Namibia after independence. I believe that steps of that kind—by the supporters' club, as it were, of friends of Namibia—now need to be taken.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister ensure that Her Majesty's Government do everything possible to make sure that there are no efforts to destabilise the position as progress is made towards independence in Namibia? Will he also ensure that in negotiations on the outstanding debt incurred by the illegal regime, every support is given to reducing that debt?
As Britain created the problem of Walvis bay, which will be a problem for negotiation following independence, will Her Majesty's Government provide all possible support to ensure that that port ultimately goes to Namibia?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will agree that the pessimists who thought that progress to independence would not succeed have been proved wrong. It has been a process in which South Africa and all the parties have kept their commitments, and we should welcome that. Problems remain for the future, and Walvis bay is one of them. We thought it right not to introduce that into the process at this stage, but it must be settled in the future.

Disability Benefits

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Government's proposals for developing and improving the system of social security benefits for disabled people.
As the House is aware, at the time when major areas of social security were reviewed between 1983 and 1985, we commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to carry out the most thorough and comprehensive study ever undertaken of disability in Great Britain. The aim was to provide information on which to base a review of benefits in this field. Six reports were published between September 1988 and July 1989.
In October, when I announced a number of initial steps following the reports, I said that we would come forward in due course with a wider range of proposals to improve the balance and structure of the system. That wider response to the OPCS reports is contained in the paper, "The Way Ahead: Benefits for Disabled People" which my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the disabled and I are laying before the House today. In formulating it, we have taken account of the many comments and suggestions that we have received, and of the very valuable report on this subject published by the Social Security Advisory Committee in 1988.
Before outlining our proposals, I should briefly remind the House of some of the main features of the OPCS surveys. The threshold for defining disability was deliberately set low, with the result that it includes people who are well able to participate in normal daily activities and who are not dependent on disability benefits or services. They found that, in general, the gap in income between disabled and non-disabled people was much greater for those under pension age. They also found, again in general, that for those in receipt of the existing mobility and attendance allowances, the value of the benefits was greater than the average extra costs that the survey identified.
In the light of that, we see three main strategic needs. One is to improve, for those of working age and below, the coverage of help with the extra costs that disability can bring. A second is to improve the balance of benefits available to those disabled people who are unable to work, in particular to do more for those who are disabled from birth or early in life. The third is to help those disabled people who can and wish to work by making it easier for them to keep or take up jobs.
Our proposals address those objectives with a programme for action in three main phases.
First, we shall shortly take the legislative or other action necessary to implement the initial package of improvements within the existing benefit structure that I announced in October. The House will recall that those changes included increasing in real terms the disability premiums in income support and housing benefit; raising premiums for disabled children to the adult rate; extending attendance allowance to disabled babies under two and to terminally ill people without any waiting period; extending mobility allowance to people who are both deaf and blind; improving incentives to rehabilitation for employment; and introducing a £10 carers' premium into income

support and housing benefit for those receiving invalid care allowance. We intend that those changes should mostly be in place by April, and all by October.
Secondly, the forthcoming Social Security Bill will contain measures to enhance the benefits of severely disabled people who were never able to work or who were disabled early in life, while at the same time ensuring a better balanced and more sustainable overall structure of income replacement benefits for incapacity, taking account of the encouraging growth of occupational provision in this field.
From the latter part of this year, we shall introduce an age-related addition to the non-contributory severe disablement allowance, at the same rates as the present additions paid with contributory invalidity benefit. This will mean up to £10 a week extra for some 250,000 severely disabled people. Also from the latter part of this year, while protecting existing entitlements, we shall end new entitlements to what are known as reduced earnings allowances in the industrial injuries scheme, thus removing an overlap with entitlement to the main invalidity benefit.
From April 1991, again while fully protecting rights and entitlements built up before that time, we shall end the accrual of new rights to the earnings-related additions to invalidity benefit. The build-up of these rights, which would otherwise go on well into the next century would, we believe, have inhibited the growth of occupational provision, constrained the Government's ability to help those most in need, and further widened the gap between those disabled people who have been able to work and those who have not.

Mr. David Winnick: Cuts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: The third phase of our programme will be to bring forward further legislation at the earliest practicable opportunity to provide for two new benefits which we aim to have in place by April 1992. One will be a disability allowance with two elements, directed respectively at the care needs and at the mobility needs of disabled people of working age and below. The care element will have three rates, of which the upper two will match the rates of the present attendance allowance. The mobility element will have two rates, of which the upper one will match the existing mobility allowance. The new lower rates of each element will give extra help to about 150,000 people in each case. Attendance allowance will remain for those over retirement age.
The other new benefit will be a disability employment credit, to promote disabled people's independence by supporting those who are in work or who would like to work and could, but whose earning capacity is low. Thus it will respond to the widely perceived need for what has often been called a partial incapacity benefit. Much detailed work will be required, particularly for this third stage. In carrying it out, we will of course take account of comments made by disabled people's organisations and others.
These proposals build in a practical and constructive way on the achievements of 10 years in which the coverage of benefits for the long-term sick and disabled has massively increased and expenditure has correspondingly doubled in real terms. While ensuring a sustainable foundation for disability benefits into the next century, including the continued growth of occupational provision,


they will bring extra help to some 850,000 people in the next few years at a net cost of some £300 million in 1993. This is new money, which was agreed in the 1989 public expenditure survey. The extra provision for the first three years, beginning in 1990–91, has been included in the totals for my Department published in the Autumn Statement. These extra amounts are £84 million in 1990–91; £138 million in 1991–92; and £213 million in 1992–93.
Together with the proposals for improved community care announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health in November, and the consultative document that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly publish on his review of training and employment services for disabled people, this improved structure of disability benefits reflects our firm commitment to improving the quality of life for Britain's disabled people.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that an improvement in disability benefits is desperately needed in Britain and is to be welcomed, but that, after 10 years of waiting, today's announcement falls far short of a comprehensive disability income, which is the real answer?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seven out of eight disabled people are left completely outside his statement today, and that for the remaining one in eight who are covered, virtually all the extra money that he speaks of will be met by savings or clawbacks on other benefits, so that almost none is net new money for the social security system?
Specifically, with regard to the package of measures that the right hon. Gentleman announced in October and repeated today, will he confirm that the £100 million cost is largely accounted for by the almost equivalent £80 million cut in statutory sick pay? Will he not recognise that it is frankly not acceptable to transfer money from one group of claimants to another?
Secondly, with regard to the age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance, the right hon. Gentleman said that it meant up to £10 a week for 250,000 disabled people. Will he confirm that the cost of that is entirely covered by the loss of other benefits, income support and housing benefit, so that there is no net extra income for those very disabled people?
Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the new disability allowance, although it largely subsumes the existing mobility and attendance allowances? But will he confirm that only one in 40 disabled people will he eligible and that, once again, one third of the cost will be clawed back by cuts in other benefits?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the new disability employment credit is also extremely limited and that only one in 30 disabled people of working age will be eligible? Will he also confirm that, yet again, the whole of the cost will be covered by savings from other benefits, so that this is merely a transfer within the social security system? Will he also confirm that this will be an income-related benefit, so that it will confine disabled people to low-paid jobs?
Those are the supposed gains in the statement. It also contains two significant losses for disabled people. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his ending the build-up of new rights to the earnings-related addition to invalidity benefit is a huge retrograde step for disabled people? Is he aware that the extent of their losses is made clear by the

fact that the Government, as a result of the cut that he has announced today, will save no less than £350 million by 1998?
Therefore, the significance of today's announcement is that it creates, for the first time, a two-nation approach to disablement. Two thirds of all disabled people—that is, those who are 60 and over—are to be treated as second-class citizens, and the massive cuts in invalidity pensions, amounting to £350 million a year, are a promise of poverty for the elderly disabled.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his ending today the reduced earnings allowance amounts to a further major cut in the industrial injuries scheme, which has already been decimated under the Government? Will he confirm that the cut will amount to no less than £40 million by 1992–93?
The Opposition welcome any genuine improvement in benefits for disabled people, but today's announcement, with its distorting mirrors of clawbacks, of savings of other benefits and of transfers between claimants within the social security system, is, regrettably, more political rhetoric and hype than real substance.

Mr. Newton: In six or seven years of facing the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) across the Floor of the House, and even with a good deal of experience of his usual reaction to my statements on such matters, I have rarely heard a less generous response to a substantial package of improvements for long-term sick and disabled people.
I hope to achieve a degree of agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but I suggest that it is common ground even with many outside this House who press for extensions additional to those that I have announced that his figures on the number of disabled who will benefit from the changes relate to the OPCS survey statistics, which constitute quite a low threshold for the starting point. In fact, the Disablement Income Group has indicated that it is too low a threshold for assessing disability. No one has seriously suggested that changes to the system could respond in the way that the hon. Gentleman implied to the needs of all the disabled covered by the survey.
Against that background, I turn to the questions asked of me by the hon. Member. I can categorically tell him that it is not the case that the extensions do not represent net new money. My statement referred to a build-up of expenditure over the next three or four years of £300 million of new money by 1993–94 in benefit improvements. As to the age-related addition to the severe disablement allowance, of course there will be some offsets—and I emphasise the word "some"—in income-related benefit, but the net increase in expenditure for about 250,000 people will, when the change takes full effect, be about £50 million.
Similarly, although it is correct to say that many of the people receiving the new disability employment credit will be less dependent on unemployment benefit, I regard that change as a net gain for everyone—including the disabled, who will be helped to be partly employed rather than be trapped and wholly dependent on unemployment benefit.
As to the earnings-related addition to invalidity benefit and the reduced earnings allowance—the second of which, we consider, considerably overlaps with the provision of ordinary invalidity benefit that the same beneficiaries receive—if left unchanged, the existing provision would build up very large entitlements in the next century, which


would have made it far more difficult for me to announce increases now that would go on top of them in the next century. Despite the fact that the measures I have announced are balanced in such a way as to create a sustainable structure in the next century, there will be a net increase in spending beyond that previously planned in every remaining year of the present century.

Sir George Young: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of new benefits for the disabled amounting to £300 million in three years' time will be warmly welcomed by those campaigning for a squarer deal for the disabled? The OPCS report identified two problems for the disabled: first, their incomes are less than average; secondly, because of their disability, their expenditure is higher than average. My right hon. Friend's statement will do much to fill that gap, particularly in respect of those in work and the less well off.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new benefits will be easier to claim and speedily paid, using, where possible, common methods of assessment? Can he confirm also that they will be disregarded for the purposes of housing benefit, so that the disabled may enjoy those extra benefits to the full? Will my right hon. Friend consult the voluntary organisations on his new measures, and take the opportunity to abolish the age limit for mobility allowance?

Mr. Newton: I cannot, I am afraid, hold out much prospect of hope to my hon. Friend on the last issue that he raised. In answer to his earlier points as I have already said, during the longer-term third phase of our programme, on which detailed work will need to be done, we shall seek and will be ready to take account of the comments of organisations for the disabled.
My hon. Friend mentioned housing benefits. I envisage that the new disability allowance would be disregarded as he suggests. One of our aims in introducing a common waiting period and system of adjudication is to eliminate some of the present unhappy tangles between the attendance and mobility allowances, and to simplify the way that claimants make their claims.

Mr. Frank Field: Would it be right for voters outside the Chamber to draw the conclusion that there is almost nothing in the package for carers? If so, how does that square with the Government's policy on community care and strengthening the family? Am I right to think that the only carers who will benefit are those on invalid care allowance who also claim income support or housing benefit? Can the Minister tell us how many tens of thousands of carers, among the millions in the country, will benefit from his statement today?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely right to suggest that the needs of carers are overlooked in my statement. He referred to the proposed introduction of a carers' premium into income support, which will benefit a significant number of carers. He failed to mention that the extension of attendance allowance to disabled babies and to the terminally ill, without a waiting period, will carry an automatic extension of invalid care allowance to carers in those two fields, who would not be entitled to it at present. The number of carers who will benefit from the extensions of attendance allowance to which I have just referred is

difficult to estimate because it depends whether or not somebody is staying at home to look after the person in question. Data are not sufficient for me to give him a specific figure. My recollection is that the number of people benefiting from the carers' premium is approximately 30,000.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sure that the House will warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because any net increase in resources for the disabled is surely something that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should warmly welcome. However, will he accept that it is difficult for some of us to judge how many people will gain from his announcement this afternoon, because we have not had the opportunity to look in detail at the statistics, as he has done?
Will my right hon. Friend take on board the valid point that has just been made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the Select Committee on Social Services with considerable distinction, that we are concerned that those who care for the disabled should not lose in any way? We know that carers sacrifice a great deal because of the devotion they give, and it is wrong not to ensure that they have an enhanced standard of life.

Mr. Newton: Of course I recognise what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have said. Incidentally, I can confirm that the number of people who benefit from the carers' premium is of the order of 30,000. We have sought to recognise the needs of carers in my announcements of last October and today. It is also important to recognise that carers need a greater awareness and recognition of what they do and they need greater support from the services provided. I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me on that, and it is very much the focus of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health's paper on community care.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although the statement is welcome as far as it goes, it seems that the emphasis is on disabled people who are in work? There is concern that the needs of those people beyond pensionable age will be ignored, and if that is the case, it is deeply to be regretted. There is widespread worry that there will not be adequate consultation. The Social Security Advisory Committee has made it clear that this is a unique opportunity to get a model for the future, and I hope that we seize that opportunity and consult properly with disabled groups. With a budget of £62 billion, an increase of £300 million over three years for 6 million disabled people and carers is a less than adequate response.

Mr. Newton: I have already commented on the numbers involved, against the background of the relatively low threshold used for the OPCS surveys, and I shall not repeat myself.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. I should perhaps remind him that the committee also felt that, in regard to additional resources, people who had been born handicapped or disabled—or who had become so early in their lives—should be given priority, and I believe that that view is widely shared. Let me also remind him that, as I said in my statement, expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled


has already doubled in real terms since the Government came to office, and is expected to rise by a further £4 billion in real terms by the end of the century.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's excellent statement, with the news of an additional £300 million for 850,000 disabled people, and reject utterly the mean-spirited response of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I particularly welcome the disability employment credit, which will enable many people who at present cannot afford to work to do so—and to feel that they are taking a full part in the life of this world, as is their right.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said, and entirely agree with her. Let me add, however—I especially wish to say this in the presence of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—that one of the merits of my statement is that it ties in with proposals that will shortly be presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, aimed at helping disabled people to find and keep work. The two sets of proposals go together.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I welcome the proposals, but I do not think that the Secretary of State should complain about a less than generous response from the Opposition, as the proposals themselves are less than generous.
The £300 million that the right hon. Gentleman has given to disabled people compares very badly with the £23 billion in tax cuts given to top earners. What we really require is a comprehensive disability income scheme that includes the 4·2 million pensioners who will not be helped by the proposals, most of whom rely on invalidity benefit. That benefit has increased by less than 1 per cent. during the decade in which the Government have been in power, while average male earnings have risen by 37·5 per cent. Where is the justice in that?

Mr. Newton: May I correct one point? Is it not the case that people over retirement age are generally dependent on invalidity benefit, although they may sometimes retain it for five years after retirement. They are normally dependent on pension provision, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my reminding him that the average total net incomes of pensioners in general have risen rapidly as a result of the policies that we have pursued.

Ms. Clare Short: Average.

Mr. Newton: Average, yes: I have never tried to run away from that fact. I have also emphasised, however, that, with the increases in income support premiums—most recently, those paid in October—we have given significant extra help to the least well-off pensioners, including many disabled pensioners, who have not benefited from some other trend.

Mr. David Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend contrast the sour carping of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) with the record of the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member? Is he aware of the wide welcome, in the House and elsewhere, for the extra money that will help hundreds of thousands of disabled people? We particularly welcome the help enabling those who wish to work to do so, especially in areas where employment is tight; and I

personally give a particular welcome to the disregard for housing benefit. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how the independent living fund is now working?

Mr. Newton: The independent living fund—for which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security., who has responsibility for the disabled, deserves great credit—is doing very well, and is helping many severely disabled people.
As we have said in the paper published today, in the light of proposed changes in the general arrangements for community care in 1991, it is probably appropriate to expect new cases—who might otherwise qualify for the independent living fund—to look to the arrangements announced in the White Paper on care in the community from that date onwards. We intend, however, to discuss carefully with local authorities any question of a handover or changeover of existing cases, and to discuss with the fund's trustees and with the Disablement Income Group in England and DIG Scotland the possible need for a supplementary scheme to deal with the requirements of a small number of very severely disabled people.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: What does the Minister propose to do about providing an allowance for the millions of carers who are not entitled to the invalidity care allowance but who are unable to continue with full-time jobs if they are properly to take care of their invalid spouse or relatives? Where will the money come from to fund the rehabilitation and the transfer of severely disabled people from hospitals to the community? Who will pay for the training of community carers? Will there be a national wage agreement, according to whose terms the carers will be paid?

Mr. Newton: I think that the hon. Lady is aware that the latter point is primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He has made it clear that he will be giving close attention to the resource implications of the proposed change in the policy structure, which is to take place in April 1991. I am sure that he will look carefully at what the hon. Lady has said. As for carers, when I replied to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I said that the package as a whole contains important improvements for many carers. Just as important is the fact that their needs should be properly taken into account under the care in the community arrangements.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend accept that this welcome statement is further evidence of the Government's commitment to increasing expenditure on the long-term sick and disabled every year? In real terms, the average increase is 70 per cent. greater than that which was given by the Labour party when it was in power. Should not the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), concentrate on helping to make the consultation period a fruitful one, so that those who are disabled and who want to work are given every encouragement to get back into work?

Mr. Newton: I am sure that we shall have the benefit of the suggestions and comments of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and we will take proper account of them. My hon. Friend was right when he said that the average real increase in expenditure on benefits for


the long-term sick and disabled has been substantially greater under this Government than it was under the Labour Government.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: While we welcome any additional funds, does the Secretary of State realise that we may not necessarily accept the way that they are distributed among different groups? Will he confirm that he has still been unable to find any way of providing a mobility allowance for mentally handicapped people? Will he confirm that some people who will be eligible for the mobility element within the new disability allowance previously had the benefit of the full mobility allowance? If part of the allowance is to be at a lower rate, some people will receive a lower mobility allowance than would otherwise have been the case.

Mr. Newton: No intention is expressed in the document to bring about a change in the present mobility allowance rules in the way that the hon. Gentleman fears. However, I have already said that there is a great deal of detailed work to be done in drawing up the common adjudication and assessment mechanisms for the new disability allowance.
I do not want the hon. Gentleman to form the impression that we intend to bring about what he suggested in the latter part of his question; nor was he right to suggest that we have not yet found a way of extending mobility help to severely mentally handicapped people. We expect many of the severely mentally handicapped, about whom there has been long argument in both Houses of Parliament, to be included among the groups who benefit from the lower rate of mobility component that is included in the new disability allowance.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Secretary of State has made significant progress in providing for the elderly and the disabled, would he be willing to make a special study and direct his enthusiasm towards the waiting time for securing benefit and the complexity of the forms that people have to fill up? Is he aware of the huge frustration that is felt by many disabled people because of the long time they have to wait before they receive benefit? Would he be willing to make a special study and direct his attention towards reducing waiting times and the complexity of form filling?

Mr. Newton: I am tempted to say that the short answer is yes, but I had better make it clear what I mean by that. We intend carefully to review the adjudication and assessment mechanisms for the mobility and care components of the new disability allowance with a view to overcoming precisely those complexities and delays which understandably cause concern to my hon. Friend's constituents and to mine. That will involve careful study and looking at the comments of the disability organisations and others. I am hopeful that we can make real progress on that front.

Mr. Harry Ewing: How is it that the Secretary of State can give us the financial costs of package, yet he seems unable to tell us the exact numbers of people who will gain or lose benefit? Does the Secretary of State have the figures but is afraid to give them, or is he so badly briefed that he simply does not have the figures?
The Secretary of State will not be surprised to know that, as one of the ministerial team in the last Labour Government who introduced the mobility allowance, I have retained a continuing interest in it. Can he confirm that, as a result of his statement today, the mobility allowance will be frozen at its present level to bring more people into the scheme at a much lower level, or do the Government intend to increase the present level of mobility allowance?
Finally, may I take advantage of having the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, not unfairly, I hope, to ask him to instruct his junior colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who unfortunately has left the Treasury Bench for a moment, to answer the question that was transferred to her on 7 December—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is well beyond the scope of the statement.

Mr. Newton: I will nevertheless bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said. There is certainly no intention to cease uprating the mobility allowance in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested. As he will no doubt be aware, the mobility allowance is among those benefits that have been increased substantially in real terms—quite apart from having been made tax free—under the present Administration. As for the numbers, regrettably I was not able to lay my hands on the exact figure that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) wanted when he asked for it, but I extracted the right figure from my mind and confirmed it in my reply to the following question.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to have regard for the subsequent business which is an important Second Reading debate which is interrupted at 7 o'clock for opposed private business, so I shall call three hon. Members from each side, and then, I am afraid, we must move on.

Mr. Tony Favell: Can my right hon. Friend say how many disabled people he expects will be able to work? Certainly, in my experience and I suppose that of most right hon. and hon. Members, disabled people want to lead lives as normal as possible, which includes not only looking after themselves but making a contribution to society. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that his announcement will be quite as welcome as the abolition of the dreaded earnings rule for pensioners.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We must all remember that a great many disabled people already work happily and successfully. The problem is that those who may be able to work only part time may fear the consequences if they work at all of losing, for example, the whole of their invalidity benefit. That is the problem that we are seeking to address. Our present estimate—although, for a variety of reasons, estimates are difficult to make—is that, initially at last, about 50,000 people will benefit from the disability employment credit.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Secretary of State has repeatedly emphasised the fact that he seeks to simplify adjudication and assessment procedures for those who apply for mobility and carers' allowances. Can he tell us what time limit he is placing on those discussions and how he will ensure that all interested parties are involved? Is he prepared to draw up a diary of negotiations to


publish in the Official Report or to place in the Library, so that we all know exactly the background against which we are operating?

Mr. Newton: I am hesitant—indeed, I am not quite willing—to offer negotiation, partly because I am extremely anxious to make rapid progress. I indicate in the paper that we hope to introduce the disability allowance, which would entail sorting out the adjudication and assessment procedures, from April 1992. That will entail primary legislation, which I have said, in words traditional in the House, will be introduced at the earliest practicable moment. That is probably the best clue that I can give the hon. Lady at present.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that disabled people, on whose behalf we speak, will welcome the new measures, the new money, and the renewed commitment to putting them high on our list of public spending priorities? Will he accept that, while they particularly welcome the employment measures that he is introducing, they will look for training along with them? Will he talk to our right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Employment to ensure that organisations such as the Share Community can look forward and plan ahead each year with confidence, knowing for certain how many disabled people they will be able to train?

Mr. Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. I have a messenger ready to hand for the latter part of his remarks, which will certainly fall on receptive ears. The consultative paper that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will publish shortly will be concerned not only with employment services in the narrow sense for disabled people, but with improving the training opportunities available to them.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Secretary of State accept that it would be helpful if hon. Members knew the gross figures from which he arrived at the net figure of £300 million, so that we do not bandy figures? Two figures must be available to enable us to judge on the one hand how much extra money is available and on the other what is being taken away to arrive at the figure of £300 million.
May I ask one question about the mobility allowance, about which I am not clear? Has the right hon. Gentleman changed the age limits for applying for mobility allowance?

Mr. Newton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Rooker: If that is not the case, will we still be left with two classes of pensioners—those who can obtain mobility allowance before retirement, who can therefore keep it, and those who become immobile after retirement, who suffer exactly the same immobility but have no chance of receiving the allowance? If the right hon. Gentleman has not done that, why has he not taken the opportunity to increase mobility allowance or the opportunity for our elderly citizens to receive it?

Mr. Newton: There is no proposal at present to extend new entitlements to mobility allowance—which, technically, in some circumstances, would be at 66—but we have said that we intend to extend the provisions that enable people who receive it before they retire to keep it. The reason why I did not feel it right to do so—especially against the background of the expressed preference of the Social Security Advisory Committee for giving priority to people who are disabled early in life or from birth—is simply that the costs would be very high indeed arid it would make it much more difficult to do some of the other things that need to be done.
On the hon Gentleman's initial question, the pattern of the figures—there is a different build-up on the different proposals that I have outlined—makes it difficult to give one figure. In so far as I can help the hon. Gentleman, for the net figure of £300 million that I quoted for 1993–94, the gross figure would probably be about £500 million.

Mr. Jim Lester: May I press my right hon. Friend most strongly to keep a careful eye on the independent living fund, which has already been mentioned and which has been a most successful innovation? All those, including the Disablement Income Group particularly, who have found it very supportive indeed would be wary of moves to change it, unless we were positive that the change would be better than the fund, which is working now.

Mr. Newton: I referred to this in an earlier answer and there is a paragraph on it, to which we gave careful consideration, in the "Way Ahead" document which has been published today. I acknowledge what my hon. Friend has said, but within the new community care arrangements it would look odd to be trying to run two parallel systems of meeting the needs of this group of people. There may be a small group for whom supplementary provision over and above the community care arrangements will be required, and that is one of the matters that we shall consider.

Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm—he did not mention this in his statement, but it confirms my point about its limited coverage—that the number of carers who will receive the carers' premium is on average about 50 per constituency, which is minuscule and pathetic? Will he confirm, as against the £300 million figure that he keeps mentioning, that there has been a cut of £80 million in statutory sick pay; that there has been a cut of £175 million through the freezing of child benefit; and that there will be a cut of £350 million from the ending of the earnings-related addition to invalidity benefit? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman now accept that, for those reasons, the statement represents almost no net extra money put into the social security system for disabled people?

Mr. Newton: I sought to respond to the hon. Gentleman at the outset. I can only repeat plainly what I said. The net result of the measure announced in the statement in respect of long-term sick and disabled people is a net increase in expenditure, in 1993–94, of £300 million, over and above present plans and for every remaining year of this century. I should have thought that he would have the grace to welcome that.

Points of Order

Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have noticed in recent weeks that it has become more difficult to hear Back Benchers when they speak in the House. I wonder whether the story that I have heard is correct. Is it the case that, because of the sound that television cameras need, there has been some damping down of the microphones? If so, I should like you to know that I, for one, should like them to be turned up a little. I can hear Ministers, but I cannot hear questions from Back Benchers.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware that the microphones are of a certain age. If the House decides to make permanent the televising of our proceedings, we may have new microphones. I note what the hon. Member said, and I shall look into it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is unrelated to what happened yesterday.
Have you had an application for a statement on the same subject as that of today's from a Treasury Minister?
I have a letter from a Treasury Minister which says:
We believe there is a case for bringing invalidity benefit into tax.
We understood that there was to be some announcement today about the taxation of invalidity benefits, but none has been made.

Mr. Speaker: I have had no indication that there is to be a statement on that matter.
European Community documents.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Not moved.

Mr. Speaker: Statutory instruments.

Mr. Dorrell: Not moved.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the statutory instrument relating to the Official Secrets Act 1989, would it be in order not to bring it before the House until public guarantees are made that the staff of the National Audit Office will not be prohibited from doing their job on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Leader of the House, if and when the matter is brought before the House, but not today.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that this business will be interrupted at 7 o'clock by opposed private business. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate, so I hope that they will bear in mind the basic time limit when they make their speeches.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
One of the hallmarks of this Government has been their determination to stand firm against the terrorist. We have never shied away from taking the measures necessary to crush the threat of terrorism—be it on the international stage or at home. This Bill will be another valuable weapon in the battle. It will help to combat international terrorism in the sky and at sea.
The Lockerbie disaster was further evidence of the depths to which these cowardly people will sink. It was an appalling manifestation of the growing scourge of international terrorism against aviation and increased the terrible toll of sabotage attacks causing the total destruction of aircraft. In the four years before Lockerbie there were three bombing incidents on international flights. Since Lockerbie a UTA aircraft and an internal flight in Colombia have been destroyed by bombs.
Passenger ships have suffered, too. In both the Achille Lauro and the City of Poros incidents we saw terrorists murder passengers in cold blood.
Conventions to deal with attacks on civil aviation have been in place for many years. The International Civil Aviation Organisation has now established standards for aviation security. More recently, through the International Maritime Organisation, the Rome convention now deals with the prevention of terrorist attacks on ports and shipping.
It is the responsibility of individual states to put those international agreements into effect. The Aviation Security Act 1982 consolidated previous legislation that has provided the framework for aviation security in this country. The time has come to review and to enlarge its provisions, and to extend them to maritime operations.
We have been determined to learn all that we can from the Lockerbie disaster. As my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said recently, remarkable progress has been made by the international investigation team which is seeking to identify the perpetrators of this appalling terrorist outrage and to bring them to justice. The chief constable of Dumfries and Galloway and his predecessor have made impressive progress, with the help of outstanding forensic work and unprecedented international co-operation. The police have taken more than 14,000 statements and recorded about 16,000 items of property. More than 35,000 photographs have been taken. Vehicles used by the police in the investigation have travelled more than 1·5 million miles. The cost so far has exceeded £7 million.
The air accident investigation branch has reconstructed a large part of the aircraft and the baggage container in which the explosion took place. As a result of its outstanding work, it has pin-pointed the precise place where the bomb blew up.
The meticulous work of those investigations continues. In addition, my noble and learned Friend recently announced that he has concluded that a fatal accident inquiry should be held into the circumstances of the deaths in the Lockerbie disaster. There are obvious difficulties in holding such an inquiry while the criminal investigation is still being actively pursued, but he will now set in hand preliminary preparations. The scope of the inquiry would be a matter for the sheriff or sheriff principal who would have regard not only to the cause of death but to the reasonable precautions by which the disaster might have been avoided. He will have the power to mount a far-ranging inquiry.
In the year since Lockerbie much has been achieved. There has been a major review of aviation security by my Department, as well as a constructive inquiry by the Transport Select Committee. I am pleased to say that the Government have been able to respond positively to the overwhelming majority of the Committee's 28 main recommendations.
My predecessor took important initiatives in the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and had full discussions on aviation security with the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Samuel Skinner, in Montreal in February 1989 and in London in April 1989. I shall be meeting Mr. Skinner in Washington tomorrow to continue those discussions.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who?

Mr. Parkinson: A different Mr. Skinner.
The British Government have pursued aviation security matters vigorously with our partners in Europe and in the Group of Seven. More importantly, we have persuaded the International Civil Aviation Organisation to adopt Britain's eight-point action plan for international work on aviation security.
At home, action has been taken to reduce further the risk of terrorist attack.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Secretary of State leaves the international aspects of this matter, will he consider whether there is any merit in this country, along with other high-technology countries, providing sophisticated equipment to those countries whose airports do not have such equipment? If such nations had that equipment it might benefit the rest of the world.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and constructive point. One of the difficulties of putting sophisticated equipment in developing countries is that sophisticated equipment often needs sophisticated operators. Interlining baggage that is fed into the system can cause major accidents, but that is an interesting point which is worth considering.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the movement is to step up personal security and inspect hand baggage and so on when passengers travel on airlines, the luggage that goes into the hold is still not searched? Therefore, while the individual is being searched more and more, and checks are made on electric razors to ensure that they do not contain bombs so that the system grinds to a halt, none of the luggage which goes into holds at British airports is screened. That is a serious indictment.

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend's assertion is incorrect. All hold baggage to be carried by American airlines to America from our airports is checked 100 per cent. A proportion of all hold baggage is checked. Aircraft are selected on a random basis and a proportion of the hold baggage on the aircraft is examined. Later, I shall talk about our proposals for extending the examination of hold baggage because I agree with my hon. Friend that our objective must be a 100 per cent. search of hold baggage. However, that is much more easily said than done.
I shall give a few examples of the action that has been taken at home since the Lockerbie disaster. Immediately after Lockerbie we tightened security for United States' airlines operating from this country; in this we worked closely with the Federal Aviation Administration. We brought in new security procedures dealing with electrical equipment carried by passengers.
More than 80,000 employees, as well as thousands of vehicles, have necessary access to the restricted areas of our four major airports. We have tightened up the whole pass system: there are tighter checks for the issue of passes, the control of vehicles, the searching of staff and vehicles, and the control of passes at the gate. By next April, there will be electronic checking of all passes at our airports.
The Department's aviation security inspectorate has been doubled. We have introduced new requirements for recruiting and training security staff; there has been a substantial increase in the number of security staff. We have doubled the money for research and development into equipment and techniques.
These steps have already been taken. But we must go further. As I have mentioned, we are working towards the screening of all hold baggage on all international flights from our airports, the physical separation airside of inbound and outbound passengers and tighter security requirements for cargo, mail and courier consignments.
Despite all that, we need to strengthen and augment the powers in the Aviation Security Act 1982. I am already able to issue directions to operators of airports and airlines. Directions under the 1982 Act have been in force for many years. Improvements in security last year were made using these powers. But further powers are needed, first, to give the aviation security inspectors more flexible and effective means to enforce directions so that deficiencies in security can be remedied on the spot, if necessary stopping operations until that has been done; secondly, to enable directions to be made to businesses other than airports and airlines which have access to aircraft; and, thirdly, to make it an offence for individuals to do certain things which are prejudicial to security. Passengers and staff must observe security requirements.
Because the proposed legislation builds on the 1982 Act, the aviation security provisions of this Bill are framed as amendments and additions to that Act. The 1982 Act and the measures to improve aviation security in part I need to be read together and to be taken as a whole.
Clause 1 deals with what are essentially terrorist acts at airports. It enables the Government to ratify the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Montreal protocol of 1988, which we signed in October that year. The protocol commits us to making it an offence under our law to carry out armed attacks at international airports and to cause damage or disruption at such airports. The protocol provides for severe penalties for these offences. In relevant cases offenders can also be extradited.
Part I widens the category of persons to whom I can give directions. In future, as well as giving directions to airport and aircraft operators, I will be able to give directions to other businesses which go on to airports. In practice, that means that catering suppliers, cleaning firms, aircraft maintenance and servicing firms and suppliers of aircraft stores will all be brought within the scope of the Act. It will be possible under clause 2 to direct all those undertakings to carry out searches of persons or property entering the land under their control; and, under clause 3, to direct them to take other aviation security measures.
Clause 4 gives powers to the aviation security inspectors to issue enforcement notices when there is a failure to comply with a direction. The person served with an enforcement notice will be required to carry out remedial action. The notice could result in certain operations having to be stopped until that action has been taken.
There have been suggestions that these notices should be published. I believe that it would be a gift to the criminal to highlight weaknesses at a time when they have been spotted but before they can be remedied. I am much in sympathy with the need to report to Parliament and, subject to the overriding priority of security, I intend to call on the inspectorate for an annual report on directions and enforcement notices which I shall lay before the House. Security must be the top priority, but I believe equally that Parliament has the right to know how the laws that it has passed are being enforced.
Clause 5 creates new offences relating to security at aerodromes. It brings individuals within the scope of aviation security legislation so that certain acts prejudicial to aviation security become offences. It will, for instance, be an offence for a person to give false information in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores, because airports and airlines must be able to establish, among other things, whether a dupe may be unwittingly carrying a bomb planted by someone else. It will be an offence to give false information in relation to an application for or the holding of an identity document. It will an offence to be in a restricted zone or to go on board an aircraft without proper authority, or to refuse to leave a restricted zone or aircraft when requested to do so.
It was suggested in some parts of the press that this section was aimed at them; that is not so. We are determined to ensure that those who work on our airports have properly authorised passes, properly obtained, and it would be quite impossible to enforce what I am sure the House will agree is a sensible law if it excluded the press. If a press man, like any other person, lied to obtain a pass so that he could get access to an airport, he must face the consequences of the law. It would be absurd for us to claim that this is a serious law while authorising the press to ignore it.

Mr. David Winnick: I recognise some of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments and obviously any measure that will help in the fight against terrorism will be most welcome. Obviously the Opposition will not vote against this measure. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in certain cases newspapers—I am not the first to defend their record—have done a public service when their reporters have gone to airports and discovered that security is lax? They are letting the public and the authorities know, and that is to be welcomed. If the Bill

undermines the role of the press in alerting the authorities to measures that need to be taken to strengthen security at airports, it is to be deplored.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that that is the case. It is important to remember that 50,000 people work at Heathrow every day. We are instituting a system that will mean that everyone who works there will have been investigated and will have been issued with a pass that has been properly obtained. We must be sure that only authorised people have access to airports. How are we to make a law that distinguishes between the villain who gives false information with ill intent to obtain a pass and the reporter who is just seeking to obtain a story? We cannot.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about reporters playing a valuable part, but it was they who made it clear that we must enforce tighter security at our airports. That is what we are doing. The Bill is in no way aimed against reporters and we are indebted to them for some of the revelations that they have made.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Parkinson: No, we are short of time and the debate began late.
This part of the Bill, together with schedule 1, provides for revised information-gathering powers under section 11 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 and for daily penalties to be imposed for continued refusal or failure to comply with a direction after being convicted of the offence. The procedure to be followed for designating the restricted zone of an aerodrome is set out in the schedule.
The Bill makes no provision to revive the aviation security fund, which was wound up in 1983 because it was bureaucratic, costly and unnecessary. Nor does it seek to create a new organisational structure. There is no doubt in my mind that responsibility for security cannot be offloaded by the Government on to some supposedly free-standing body.
Part II enables the Government to give effect to the International Maritime Organisation's convention on terrorism at sea and its linked protocol on fixed platforms. The Bill makes it an offence to hijack any ship or unlawfully to seize or exercise control of a fixed platform.
Part III, although the longest part of the Bill, simply extends to maritime activities powers comparable with those available under the Aviation Security Act 1982 or proposed for aviation security in part I.

Mr. Barry Field: An undertaking was given to the shipping industry that the legislation would go no further than the International Maritime Organisation's convention. However, part Ill does go further.

Mr. Parkinson: I know that parts of the industry believe that the legislation is unnecessary. I have no doubt that many of our best companies are already complying voluntarily with the convention, but it is being observed in a patchy fashion and some companies do not observe it. The Bill gives the Government reserve powers to enforce what everyone recognises are necessary measures. It does not go any further than it needs to, but it is necessary for it to go as far as it does.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Parkinson: No, we are very short of time.
We are seeking those powers because there is no legal framework for ensuring that adequate security precautions are taken to counter terrorism on ships and in ports.
The terrorist threat to shipping is not as high profile as that to aviation, but it exists and the level of risk can escalate at any time. The Achille Lauro and the City of Poros incidents are only two of over 50 terrorist attacks on shipping in the 1980s alone. So we are discussing not a small but a very serious problem.
At present, as I said, the problems are being tackled by voluntary co-operation with the industry, and I hope that that will continue. But we also need a framework for setting out and enforcing standards for the protection of the travelling public, the crews of ships and others engaged in the maritime industries. The provisions of part III are intended to provide that framework. They will aim to achieve a level of security appropriate to the threat to shipping.

Mr. Wilson: Many people regard one of the great acts of treachery against this country by the Government to have been the virtual destruction of the British merchant navy, so we are cautious of anything that further discriminates against British-registered ships. In the light of that, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why clause 19(2), which gives the Secretary of State the right to
give a direction in writing to the owner, charterer or manager of a … ship",
is restricted to British-registered ships and, unlike clause 19(1), does not cover foreign-owned or foreign-flagged ships in British ports?

Mr. Parkinson: Because we want to make it clear that the Bill applies to British ships whether they are here or operating abroad; it applies to them wherever they are. A wider duty is imposed on them as a result of the Bill. We do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of this Government's attitude to merchant shipping. Indeed, the Government who did the real damage to shipping were the Government who keeled over on every occasion to the trade unions and destroyed the economy. That did the damage to the British maritime fleet.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fears that have been expressed—for example, by the Milford Haven port authority, which is responsible for Milford Haven and Pembroke dock, and by the Dyfed-Powys police, who have the special branch responsibility for Fishguard and Pembroke dock and therefore for two lots of Irish ferry traffic—that the costs of part III will be horrendous? Will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with the Home Secretary to see whether some arrangement can he made between the two Departments to enable port and police authorities which will be concerned with the implementation of part III to receive additional resources and assistance?

Mr. Parkinson: As I have pointed out, these are reserve powers which the Government will invoke if voluntary co-operation does not develop. But I shall look into the matter because my hon. Friend makes an important point.
Part IV contains miscellaneous and general provisions. In particular, the Civil Aviation Authority will be enabled to inspect any document relating to suspected or declared dangerous goods. It will also be able to examine and send for analysis the contents of any package or baggage which it believes contains dangerous goods.
I have explained what has been and is being done. The House should not underestimate the scale of the task in hand. In the peak last year, Heathrow alone handled over 1,000 aircraft movements a day. More than 142,000 passengers a day pass through the airport's terminals. The airport typically handles over 160,000 items of baggage every day of the week. Manchester airport already handles more than 50,000 passengers on a peak day with perhaps 65,000 items of baggage, and the figures are growing every year. The port of Dover handles over 100,000 passengers and 10,000 vehicles a day.
We are committed already to levels of security which are appropriate to the perceived threat. We must distinguish between a real threat and spurious warnings. The House may be interested to know that last year alone over 460 hoax warnings were made in relation to United Kingdom airports and airlines. It is a sad reflection on some sick minds that the number has increased substantially since Lockerbie.
We never can be complacent about security, but I am confident that the measures in the Bill will improve aviation and maritime security still further. With the backing of the industry and the police, the Bill will be an effective weapon in our armoury against the terrorist. I urge the House to give this vital measure a Second Reading.

Mr. John Prescott: Forces in the House will be aware of an agreement that there would be no ministerial statement before this debate, in view of the limited time available for it. I regret, at the outset of my remarks, that I must record that the agreement has been broken. The result is that some hon. Members will not have an opportunity to take part in the debate.
Occupants of the Front Benches were asked to co-operate, and perhaps I should make my point absolutely clear by stating that the Lord President, who was involved in the deal, apparently forgot about it. If that represents the performance of the present Lord President, particularly in view of what happened yesterday—remembering that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the deputy Prime Minister—he must be Britain's answer to Dan Quayle.

Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have some guidance from the Chair? I understand that this debate can continue after 10 o'clock, and hence the point that is being made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not correct.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Perhaps I can assist the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen). If the debate does not finish by 7 o'clock, it will be interrupted by private business and will then resume after 10 o'clock or when private business has been concluded.

Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the normal channels were aware of that bit of basic information. It being the Second Reading of a Bill, it was agreed to abide by the normal practice and not have a ministerial statement. Normally, such statements are not made prior to a Second Reading debate which is likely to be interrupted at 7 o'clock for private business.
The House will welcome the Bill, which attempts to improve security for shipping and aviation and to make it


more difficult for cowardly acts of terrorism to occur or for bombs to be planted on aircraft and planes—devices like those which have already killed hundreds of innocent passengers. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I welcome the legislation, particularly as it is based on international conventions for international transport.
I have read the reports of previous debates on such conventions and legislation that have taken place since the early 1970s. At no stage, whether a Labour or Conservative Government have been in power, has the House divided on such measures. That is a precedent which my hon. Friends and I do not intend to break, so we shall support the Bill tonight.
But I have some serious criticisms to make about the measure, and I would not want to disappoint Conservative Members about our attitude towards safety. It is often agreed between both sides of the House that safety issues must be put at the top of the list. The question is how safety is achieved, and the way in which the policy is implemented is the point that I shall address in particular.
The major flaw in the Government argument on this issue, and the way in which they approach it, lies in the fact that the conventions on the subject refer to the responsibility of "the competent authority". I accept the importance of having conventions, but they must be correctly implemented and the competent authority must be sure that the policy agreed in an international convention is carried out.
Unfortunately for us, the competent authority is defined as the Department of Transport. That Department has a lamentable history of failing to carry out its safety responsibilities in nearly all forms of transport in Britain. That is not only the view of workers and others involved in the industries concerned. It is the view of consumer bodies and groups representing travellers, and it applies to every mode of transport, be it the railways, shipping, aviation or the roads.
I call in aid more fundamental support for my contention that the Department has been totally inadequate in carrying out its responsibilities for safety. I cite the reports that have been commissioned by the Department following the terrible tragedies that have occurred in the last few years. Consider, for example, the awful shipping tragedy in the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise. In that case, the Sheen report identified a conflict of interest in the Department, a laxity that failed to check a sloppy shipping management that undoubtedly ignored all the warnings and contributed to that terrible tragedy.
Both the Fennell and Hidden reports on the terrible tragedies at King's Cross and Clapham again exposed the Department's inept handling of safety matters. They said that the independent railway inspectorate, which is the kind of inspectorate that the Bill envisages, failed in its responsibilities, was not a satisfactory body, was under-resourced and failed to use its existing powers. How else could one explain the inspectorate's refusal to accept the reports from fire departments about the many thousands of fires that were occurring on the Underground? The reason is simply that the inspectorate was undermanned and decided that it did not want to

accept the reports. All that is documented in the reports and is an indictment of the Department's handling of safety in shipping and on the railways.
In terms of aviation, I am afraid that we have to rely on the reports of the Select Committee. Anybody who has read those reports will recognise that the Committee is to be congratulated on its depth of analysis and on its approach to safety. It can honestly claim to have looked ahead at the problem and to have made recommendations that were pertinent to the problem of aviation security. Unfortunately, those recommendations were ignored. I shall deal with that later. I am sure that many hon. Members join me in congratulating that Committee on its excellent work.
I am sure that when we consider aviation we shall all have strongly in mind the terrible tragedy at Lockerbie which occurred a little more than 12 months ago. I should like to be identified with the Secretary of State's remarks about the police authority investigation and the work of the forensic science departments. They showed tremendous ability and one cannot but be impressed by their detailed and painstaking work. I am sure that we are all sorry that that has not led to a conviction, but that is no fault of the police or the forensic science departments.

Sir Hector Monro: I should like to be associated with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those of the hon. Gentleman. The people of Lockerbie are extremely proud of the local police force, its chief constable and the inspector in Lockerbie, both of whom were honoured in the new year. They have carried out a wonderful job and we all hope that it produces results in the not too distant future.

Mr. Prescott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has a close and active association with the matter.
There is a great danger that by passing the legislation we will assume that we have vastly improved aviation safety. That depends heavily upon the abilities of the Department of Transport, which is the competent authority. If it does not carry out its work effectively and ensures that we do exactly what is agreed in the conventions, the legislation will be meaningless. At the heart of the argument is just how competent the Department of Transport is to implement any convention.
The charge that I wish to substantiate is that the Department of Transport is inadequate and does not have the resources, the commitment or the will to deal with the kind of problem that it faces. I admit that I am a long-time critic of the Department, and my criticism goes back to Labour Governments, as former Labour Secretaries of State will confirm. The evidence of the coastguard inquiries points to a completely incompetent Department that was constantly criticised. I could continue ad nauseam about the Department.
The Bill is complicated and deals with shipping, oil rigs and aviation. I should like to deal briefly with its maritime provisions. Everyone accepts that we have witnessed a massive decline in the Merchant Navy. Select Committees have made clear that the very defence of the country is now threatened because we do not have a Merchant Navy of an adequate size. That was not contested until we heard the Secretary of State making ideological remarks that are completely divorced from the facts. He is becoming famous for that.
The convention advocates the authorising of people to integrate, arrest and search. Those people are not members of the police, and that causes me some concern. I hope that in the winding-up speech we will be told who these people will be. They will clearly not be police, but they will have the powers that we normally associate with the police and that is alarming.
Secondly, in their maritime provisions the Government are going further than the convention. I have always advocated standards higher than those set out in the convention if necessary, and I am always prepared to consider such steps. The Department of Transport and the Secretary of State tell us that the stability standards for our ferries go farther than international standards. After the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Department is advocating voluntary standards that will not be imposed by law. The Minister of State probably knows that that is true. Why are the Government not prepared to be ahead of the convention and implement by legislation stability standards? The Government use the excuse that the standards cannot be agreed internationally and that they are not prepared to do that. However, in the case of powers for inspection on ships in our harbour areas they are prepared to go beyond international standards, although that applies only to British vessels. That is discriminatory and is causing some concern in the industry. I hope that in his winding-up speech the Minister will give us some information on that.
We are concerned about attack by terrorists, but many merchant seamen lose their lives because of inadequate safety standards on vessels. The Government do not appear to be greatly concerned about that. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) was in a vessel that was lost on 12 December. The vessel was hiring crews registered in the Bahamas and people who had never been to sea. The 16-year-old youth from Jarrow, who had no sea-going experience and was expected to do watch-keeping duties, was picked up at a job centre and offered a job at £70 per week. Those are the sort of safety problems faced by the maritime industry, and such matters are as important as the terrorist aspects of safety.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No, because I am pressed for time. The major is used to addressing squaddies in such language, but the hon. Gentleman must accept that I am not prepared to give way.
I shall now concentrate on aviation. In the 1970s the convention and legislation were largely concerned with the problem of hijacking. They sought to harmonise matters to make sure that hijacking was a serious offence and they established funding for security machinery. We see such machinery at airports and it is expensive and requires proper funding. We also introduced better police control. Those things helped to reduce the problems, and we entered the 1980s with threats not from hijacking but from explosives in the luggage, which is the real problem now.
The Aviation Security Act 1982 dismantled the fund set up to pay for the machinery that was brought in in 1978. It removed the police controls and advocated the bringing in of what we are now witnessing—the privatisation of security. Not long after that we had the terrible tragedy of Pan Am flight 103 on 21 December with the loss of 270 people. The Select Committee on Transport was

concerned before that tragedy and feared such an incident after we witnessed the loss of the Air India aircraft that was blown out of the sky in 1985. The Committee had the foresight to say that we should look at air security in Britain and asked whether we were doing enough to prevent explosives being placed in the luggage.
The Committee produced its fourth report in 1985 and the conclusions were very alarming. The Select Committee took the view that not enough was being done about airport security. It said:
Airport security has made an art of passing the buck.
Anyone reading that report in the light of recent events will know that that applies today.
The Select Committee then made the point that something should be done about luggage in the hold. It recommended a banding of luggage. The Government's response was, first, that that is expensive; secondly, that there is not much space; and, thirdly, that there are not many power points to allow that to be done. That was not an adequate response to the problem of explosives in luggage.
The Select Committee recommended that the aviation fund should be re-established. It believed that not only were funds necessary to provide machinery, but that it was important for security that all the links of the chain should be equally strong. Therefore, small airports that could not afford the necessary machinery could finance such spending through cross-subsidisation, with the bulk of the money coming from the major airports. It is important that baggage should undergo the same security checks whether it comes in through Humberside airport, Heathrow or Gatwick. That was the object of the fund.
The Secretary of State was asked what would be done about countries that had neither the means nor the people to carry out such checks, and said that that was a useful point that we most bear in mind. But the same applies to Humberside and Leeds airports, or any small airport with connections with international flights. They do not have the money to fund such expenditure, so the aviation security fund is essential. However, the Government rejected that.
The Select Committee recommended an independent aviation security inspectorate. The Government, not wanting to appear to reject that, took the good old Civil Service approach and set up a working party. That sat for about three years, was lost in the Home Office and was revived in the face of the embarrassment of the Lockerbie disaster. Up to that time, no report had been published.
After the Lockerbie disaster, the previous Secretary of State assured us from the Dispatch Box that the greater majority of the Select Committee's recommendations had been implemented by the Government. That was wrong. What he really meant to say, as the Select Committee pointed out, was that the majority of recommendations were accepted by the Government. That is quite different from implementing them. Anybody who doubts that need only look at the Select Committee's third report on airport security , in which it considered how effective the Government had been. I was going around saying that the Government had not implemented eight of the 20-odd recommendations, and, not unusually, there was a dispute between me and the previous Secretary of State.
I rest my case on the Select Committee's conclusion. In its third report, published on 18 July 1989, it says:
Accepting recommendations is one thing, implementing them another.


Paragraph 3 goes on to say:
The call for new powers has tended to obscure the fact that existing ones were poorly used; there was laxity in approach to security which gives us severe doubts as to whether our recommendations were fully implemented.
That proves the point that I was trying to make at the time. The previous Secretary of State has moved on to other things, so we cannot call him to account now. However, the Select Committee's report is undoubtedly another indictment of the Department of Transport's handling of security.
It is interesting to look at the Select Committee's recommendations. Recommendation 11 was that all hold luggage on international flights should be screened and that there should be a clear policy on that. The Secretary of State said that he wants to see that and to work towards it. As usual, the Government's response is, "Yes, something more should be done but consultations will take years, things cannot be done immediately and it all depends on whether space is available."
Airport authorities are already advertising space for the sale of goods. Money is available to sell goods to make a profit but not for machinery which only ensures security. That is a good example of the conflict between commercial priorities and the need to provide safety at our airports.
The Department of Transport says that such things take a long time, but does anybody doubt that if safety became a priority it could be achieved quickly? It cannot be done overnight, but the Government are still using the kind of language that they used to respond to the Select Committee's first report a few years ago. No doubt we will get the same response again and nothing will be achieved.
The American Federal Aviation Administration has always required the examination of hold luggage on American aircraft. It knows the limitations of machinery, but it demands that, if necessary, examinations be carried out in some other way. Britain has had to apply for exemption from the FAA ruling, so American airlines coming into Britain will no longer have to conform with what they believe to be the safest form of luggage examination. That is one heck of a comment on our ability to provide adequate safety checks
It could be argued that the public have a right to know which airlines are inspecting luggage. Why is that not put on the board? Let it be clearly said that all the luggage going in the hold is inspected so that people who think that those airlines will be safer can use them. The public are increasingly demanding such information. As soon as airlines have to start putting such information on the board, they will find all sorts of reasons to inspect all the luggage going into the hold. We know how it goes. But the people who are putting the lid on that are the airport authorities which do not want to spend money on providing extra space over a short period of time. It always comes down to money. Hon. Members constantly have to argue that safety must have a high priority because we know that, when there is a conflict between commerce and safety, often the commercial priorities prevail.

Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is expounding utter nonsense when he says that commercialism gets in the way of safety. If he disbelieves me, I advise him to look at what happened to Pan Am's ticket sales in the light of a lapse of security. Commercialism demands the highest safety standards.

Mr. Prescott: People need to know what a company is doing and how. That is the basic point I am trying to make. The hon. Gentleman often appears on television as the Government's apologist when they find themselves in difficulty. He is well known for that. My argument is that airlines should say whether they inspect the luggage in the hold. That basic piece of information should be readily and easily available.
The Select Committee's recommendation 15 was that an aviation security fund should be established, paid for by a levy on passengers. There is a dispute between the Opposition and the Government about whether there should be an overall fund to achieve strong security in all our airports. Again, the Government's response is that that is bureaucratic and complicated. Yet at the same time they say that we should not worry because there will be no problems in funding safety. If that is the case, how will the money be provided? It will be highly expensive. Will it simply be left to the British Airports Authority to look after its own and for Humberside and Leeds to look after their own? If so, an acceptable expenditure at Heathrow will be an extraordinary expenditure elsewhere. That is the reality. I know that cross-subsidisation sticks in the craw of many Conservative Members, whether it be in relation to buses, railways or airports, but it is the best means of providing adequate machinery and the specialists required to maintain high safety levels.

Mr. Barry Field: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Prescott: No, leave the major alone.
I wondered about the history of the matter and I checked to see whether the House had ever divided on the matter of the aviation security fund. I was curious to know the reaction of the then Conservative Opposition to those Labour Government proposals. Their Front Bench spokesman, the then hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South—now the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson)—commented that the financing of security measures
must be put on a more permanent and sensible basis.
It is our considered view that there are even stronger arguments in favour of transferring the cost—some £19 million—from the taxpayers generally to those who benefit from the service provided, namely, those who travel by air … there is no such thing as a free lunch …
There are many precedents for making the charge on those who use the service."—[Official Report, 16 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 78–79.]
I fully endorse those observations of the now Secretary of State for Transport. He supported the fund, did not vote against it, and even had a difference of opinion with the right hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), who intervened in his speech. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State once supported the position taken by the Labour party. That may have changed, but what has not changed is the fact that a great deal of money is still needed to fund a high level of security, which must be achieved by cross-subsidisation.

Mr. Barry Field: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene now?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, I shall allow the major to speak.

Mr. Field: I was a squaddie once, and I only won promotion by listening to people.
What is Labour party policy on the maintenance of frontier and interstate inspections at borders, given that the Government want to maintain them within the EEC in order to prevent terrorism?

Mr. Prescott: We have great sympathy with that objective and believe that there is a special argument for maintaining those inspections, which are required in respect not only of terrorist activities but for the weighing of lorries at ports. The present proposals will mean that the port state issue will be weakened. Fewer inspections will not only increase the risk of terrorism but reduce safety. It will be interesting to see what action the Government take. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to the Secretary of State, and I join him in asking the right hon. Gentleman to bear that point in mind.
Recommendations V, VI and VIII of the Select Committee's third report make it clear that the Secretary of State had reached the view that there should not be an independent police authority. That is in line with the Home Office report and the change of mind among chief police officers who said that they were willing to go along with an aviation security inspectorate. The Select Committee commented that if the Government intended to adopt that proposal, the inspectorate should be given the correct status and independence and should not become lost within the Department but be allowed to speak freely in the name of safety. The Select Committee recommended that the head of the inspectorate should be appointed at the level of a chief constable and be given independent access to the Secretary of State for Transport and powers similar to the Health and Safety Executive to report independently.
The Government's response was to deny independent access to the Secretary of State. Instead, the head of the inspectorate will be appointed at grade 6. It is interesting that someone appointed at grade 4—a higher post—is the chief inspector of air accidents, who does have direct access to the Secretary of State because of the special nature of such investigations and the desirability of maintaining his independence. If that chief inspector has any concerns, he can approach the Secretary of State directly.
Why should a person in charge of aviation security be so different? Why should the aviation inspector be required to report first to an assistant secretary, who reports the matter to an independent intermediate, who reports to an under-secretary, who reports to the deputy secretary, who finally reports to the permanent secretary—presumably Sir Humphrey, who might then tell the Secretary of State what is going on?
What if the inspectors, who will serve as a kind of SAS in making assaults on the system to establish whether it is secure, find that it is inadequate? Will they follow the example set by journalists in exposing that inadequacy in the press, which would probably have more effect on the Department, or will they merely produce an internal memo? If they do the latter, that memo will be smothered by the Department, and no one will know what is going on. Yet again, the Department has won.
I understand that the Department made some changes in the aviation security division, which will no longer be directly involved in policy. Nevertheless, it will still be locked into the Department's policy requirements. In that respect, it will find itself in the same situation as the railway inspectorate. Policy requirements relating to

cutbacks in resources affect safety, but if any complaint concerning safety is made it will be lost within the Department's bureaucracy. That illustrates more than anything the motive behind the Government's action in prosecuting a few journalists who did a good job of exposing certain security inadequacies—or, more to the point, the then Secretary of State's inadequate response to demands for improved safety. All kinds of assurances were given to this House, but they were not honoured, as we know from the journalists' expose.
The Secretary of State remarked that one cannot differentiate between journalists and those who may be attempting to perpetrate a serious offence. The courts take into account serious intent—but leaving that aside, why did the Department ban air-side journalists after the former Secretary of State for Transport was photographed walking down the steps from an aircraft before making his way to the private exit carrying his bag of duty-free goods after returning from Mustique? Why did the Department perform that act of petty vengeance, which did not serve to improve security but was merely indicative of its desire to deflect public attention from its inability to deal properly with security?

Mr. Parkinson: I will put a simple question to the hon. Gentleman, and I would like him to give a straight answer. Does he agree that it is important that when people are questioned and, on the basis of the answers they provide, are issued with passes they should be prosecuted when it transpires that they told lies? Would he be in favour of exempting journalists from prosecution? I think not.

Mr. Prescott: No, I do not think that one should exempt journalists. One cannot draw such a distinction, which illustrates the importance of proper vetting procedures. Nevertheless, the Department took action against journalists who exposed inadequacies that existed despite the many assurances that had been given to the House. Why was action taken against the air-side journalists who only took photographs—who were subject to security vetting and cleared, who do not represent a threat to the nation's security, and who are traceable? That action by the Department was just another example of hiding the loopholes exposed by press attention. All that suggests that the Department is not competent to deal with such matters.
The Select Committee concerned itself also with the question of threats and warnings, particularly in relation to the Lockerbie disaster. There has been no investigation into the way in which the Department handled that particular incident. It received a warning about the possible loss of an American aircraft that included the information that it would probably be a Pan Am flight, the route, approximate time, and that a radiocassette bomb was the likely device. The Department circulated that warning on 19 December, which was two days before the disaster. That warning was lost in the Christmas post and most interested parties did not receive it until after the tragedy had occurred. The same Department issued the advice that airlines should watch for a radiocassette bomb, and that any item of which they were unsure should be put in the hold of the aircraft. How can one trust such a Department to be in charge of aviation security?
There is documentary evidence of the way in which the Department dealt with that most serious matter, which is why the relatives of those who died in the Lockerbie


disaster have demanded an independent inquiry. I believe that the Secretary of State was of a mind to commission one. He has shown in his letter that it is Government policy. I think he argued the case, but the Government do not want an inquiry into Lockerbie. We are told that that is because there is a criminal inquiry under way, but in America a criminal investigation has not stopped them having a presidential inquiry, and they have fined the company involved.
When the Secretary of State rushed out all those things just before the anniversary of the Lockerbie tragedy; when he forgot that there would be a fatal accident inquiry; when he announced that there would be a fatal accident inquiry, or perhaps I should say that the Crown Office for Scotland made that announcement—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is looking shocked, but he talked to the relatives about the inquiry before it was announced, so he must have been a party to the understanding.

Mr. Parkinson: This is a matter entirely for the Lord Advocate, in his capacity as the chief law officer in Scotland. He knew that I was meeting the relatives. I told him. He knew what I was going to say to them. He authorised me to say that he was seriously considering holding a fatal accident inquiry. That decision was entirely independent of me. He announced the inquiry 10 days later and it was his decision as a law officer—and not mine—as part of the Government.

Mr. Prescott: I fully accept what the Secretary of State has said. I did not doubt that it was not his decision. I said that he was aware that that offer was going to be made to the relatives. That is fine, but there is one difficulty. As he told me in his letter, the fatal accident inquiry can look at
the defects, if any, in any system of working which contributed to the deaths
or to the accident.
One would assume that the way that the Department of Transport handled the information and the warning is pertinent to the matter, and the Select Committee talked about that. The Committee said that it believed and hoped that the Department had a more sophisticated way of dealing with it. In reality, we do not know, because we do not know what the mistakes were, as that kind of inquiry is prevented. The fatal accident inquiry cannot investigate those pertinent matters. I have evidence from the law officers that makes it clear that the inquiry cannot sit in secret. Therefore, it cannot deal with confidential information, or information on security. Also, it cannot receive evidence outside the United Kingdom, although America and Germany are involved. The evidence also states that:
In any court proceedings, public interest immunity may be claimed by a Government Minister in respect of production of documents or articles or the giving of any evidence where it is considered by that Minister that it is not in the public interest to make the evidence available.
The Department of Transport could make the case to the inquiry that it would not provide it with the kind of information that would be pertinent to the argument—for example, whether it had the information in time, or whether it passed it on properly.
Will the Secretary of State say now that he will co-operate with that inquiry by giving details about every kind of action that took place? Will he give all the information that is available, so that the fatal accident

inquiry can make some assessment of whether the Department of Transport was competent in its handling of the threatening information that was so correct about the Lockerbie tragedy? Will the Secretary of State say now whether his Department will give its full co-operation in that inquiry?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot anticipate what the sheriff principal will want to ask, or whether I will be able to answer it. The fatal accident inquiry is being set up, and we shall have to see how the sheriff principal conducts his inquiry.

Mr. Prescott: I am afraid that is the kind of language that we have learned to live with from the Department of Transport. It will not hold an inquiry into the way that it has handled matters that are pertinent to this issue.
Our case is that, while we welcome the legislation, we have no confidence in the Department of Transport to carry out its responsibilities under it. We shall try to change the Bill in Committee, but we want to make it clear now that safety is our top priority. We mean it. We make recommendations for change, and we pursue them. The Government's stance is just rhetoric, and that has been particularly exposed in this legislation.

Mr. Terry Dicks: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward the Bill, as any improvement in security is to be welcomed, particularly when it concerns aviation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was not on the Select Committee on Transport, so he is not aware of the Contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's predecessor, who was so honest about the Lockerbie incident. He came to the Select Committee and was honest and open with his information, and I have no reason to disbelieve anything that he said. I am certain that he did not hide anything from us. The handling of procedure by the Chairman of the Committee was exceptional, and tribute must be paid to him for the way that we got to grips with the situation.
I should also like to praise the British Airports Authority, although I know that that is unusual for me, and the airlines. They have all made some efforts to improve security at Heathrow, in particular.
The Secretary of Suite has had power of direction since 1982, and he is now going to extend it. Will he assure the House that he will use those directions to ensure that airline operators will make space available for those airlines which want to do more comprehensive baggage searches? The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East touched on that issue.
We know that there have been instances at Heathrow and elsewhere when the facilities that airlines have requested have not been granted for various reasons. My right hon. Friend should consider that. It is not fair for the operators to say, "I am sorry, we haven't got the space", when, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, there is plenty of space available for shopping in the terminals. The BAA is now advertising and saying, "Come and shop in our terminals even if you're not flying out of there". There is enough congestion at Heathrow airport now, without encouraging people to shop there. I


hope that my right hon. Friend will use his powers, if they are applicable, to ensure that, if an airline wants to do a more intensive baggage search, it will be able to.
My right hon. Friend should also consider the fact that customs and immigration officers are not subject to full security checks at Heathrow. Perhaps they feel that they are too important and that they are above the normal security checks—I do not know. In the past, they have been excluded from the full security checks in directives. I do not believe that a customs or immigration official should be excused security checks for covert operations or for any other activities. Some of them strut around Heathrow as if they own the place, but they are there to serve the travelling public.

Mr. Wilshire: rose—

Mr. Dicks: I will not give way, as it would not be fair, but I apologise to my hon. Friend.
There are still instances at Heathrow when passengers boarding planes come into contact with passengers who have just arrived. That must be a major security risk. Although that probably requires a long-term change in the structure of the terminals, we must not forget the importance of the issue, and the ease with which something could be passed from a passenger getting off a plane to someone boarding one. It is quite frightening.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also mentioned media passes at Heathrow. To some extent, I must take the blame for the reduction in the number of such passes.
Last summer, I got off an aeroplane just behind a famous film star—Gregory Peck. As he walked out of the door of the aeroplane, he was surrounded by seven or eight cameramen, and about 20 reporters. Later, I made some inquiries but I could not understand why he had to be interviewed airside rather than landside. I asked the BAA how many media passes it had issued. It took half a day to answer, and told me the number was more than 300 and less than 400. Two days later it told me that there were 347.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will agree that there is no justification for the media having 347 airside passes, some of which are never used for long periods, while others are used only to take photographs of travelling passengers. There is no need for the media to go airside, and there is no need for Ministers or Prime Ministers to be interviewed airside when there are widespread opportunities for interviews elsewhere.
The BAA is to be congratulated on drastically reducing the number of passes, and I think that the travelling public will be happy about that.
I share the concern of the hon. Member about the effectiveness of the Department of Transport, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be too upset about that. We all know of instances of problems there. When officers came before us, and I questioned them about how many inspectors at airports had had experience of working in airports, I was told that one had trained for a time as an air traffic controller. None of the other inspectors had ever worked at an airport before, or been involved with airport security. I hope that there are now more inspectors with detailed knowledge of airports and how they operate.
I think that I was the only member of the Select Committee to stress that, at Heathrow in particular, if there is a security scare a meeting has to be called to decide

how to handle it. The meeting will be attended by representatives of the BAA, the airline and the police. I still maintain that the police should have overall responsibility for airport security. In 1985 or 1986, the police said that they wanted such responsibility, but when the Association of Chief Constables came before us recently it had changed its tune.
The police should not be allowed to pick and choose their areas of responsibility. One person should clearly be at the top of the chain of command at each airport, responsible for security at that airport. I find it ludicrous that a meeting of three, four, five, six, seven or eight people should have to be called to discuss how to cope with an immediate security problem. The sooner the police start operating at airports again and some of the private security firms cease to do so, the better, and the man at the top should certainly be from the police.
I welcome the Bill. As I have said, we must all welcome any measure that will make the life of the terrorist more difficult and will tighten airport security. Despite the sometimes antagonistic approach of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, I am glad to say that I accept much of what he said, and I share his concern about the effectiveness of the Department in dealing with the problem.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Thank you for allowing me to take part in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am especially interested in the subject, for two reasons—first, because, sadly, one of my constituents died in the Lockerbie crash, and, secondly, because I have received some disquieting correspondence from an airline pilot who, although he operates out of Aberdeen, lives in my constituency.
My constituent who died did not have an opportunity, as did the staff of the American embassy in Moscow, to receive a warning, and had no chance of withdrawing from the flight. He was a very young man, and his widow and 18-month-old son are left grieving. The widow went immediately to Lockerbie to find out whether her husband's body had been traced, but was not treated very sympathetically; she complains not about the behaviour of the local police, but about that of a number of other agencies. She was sent away, and 12 days passed before she was informed that her husband's body had been found. It turned out later that—according to reliable information—the body had not been mutilated, and that her husband's face was recognisable. His pocket contained an identity card with a photograph and a thumbprint. I inquired into the matter, but have received no explanations that satisfy me or the family of my late constituent.
I shall not pursue the subject of Lockerbie further, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has taken it up a number of times. Let me instead deal with the questions raised by the airline pilot.
First, the pilot complains that several of the security arrangements that have been made so far are purely cosmetic. He says that he and his colleagues understand the need for some cosmetic arrangements: the public must see that the Government are concerned and are doing something. Nevertheless, he complains that security staff are spending most of their energies checking on the wrong people. He points out that Members and staff of the House of Commons who are well known enter the building


without security checks, but that visitors are all carefully checked: hon. Members are not treated as potential terrorists. The plane that he flies is small, he says; it carries only 48 bags, only three of which are checked—and they are the three belonging to the crew. He also complains about the pavement searches of the crew's belongings, which are conducted outside the perimeter fence, in full public view. He finds that harassing and offensive.
A letter sent to me by this constituent from the chief pilot, Highlands division, Glasgow airport, demonstrates that those complaints are justified. The letter mentions that work is to be done,
hopefully this weekend, on the floor of the portacabin. It was the vibration in the floor which was causing every single person to trigger the warning on the security arch.
It goes on to say:
They are providing screens for the girls to be searched behind and I have also requested that the security ladies are given more training in body searching and make their searches less intimate and brusque.
It seems that crew and staff are not being treated respectfully. I do not think that a pilot should have to write to a Member of Parliament to ask for a curtain to be provided behind which intimate body searches can be conducted, yet that pilot has had to do so. He also complains that it has taken the Department of Transport nine months to answer his letters of complaint.
I think that everyone will agree that perhaps the greatest danger at airports is caused by baggage being left surreptitiously in passenger terminals, or baggage in aircraft freight holds that is not reconciled with passengers who have checked in. It seems to me that the airline staff, particularly check-in staff, are in the best position to spot unusual behaviour on the part of passengers, and to note the time that elapses before bookings, the method of payment—whether the ticket was bought with cash or a credit card, for instance—and people whose nationalities are unusual on a particular airline. All these measures can help to identify a bona fide passenger.
It is plainly important for the expertise of staff to be used and respected, but my informant says that
the measures that the Secretary of State has introduced
have
demoralised them"—
that is, airline staff—
to the extent that they have become very apathetic towards security.
I hope that that is not true, but I feel that the Secretary of State should look into it.
The pilot suggests a number of measures that I think are worth considering. He would, he says,
like to see a review of the whole issue of Airport Security with proper consultation with all Trade Unions in the industry.
I feel that I must give that proposal my wholehearted support, for I believe that full consultation with those at the sharp end of any industry—those who actually work in it—would greatly benefit society in general and that the knowledge, talent and experience of such people should be used and respected.
The pilot would also
like to see resources directed towards training of airline personnel, and especially check-in staff to identify potential terrorists.
This should be funded by the Government.
The pilot wants all staff to be issued with valid identity cards; that has been discussed today. He also raises the question of fraud. On 11 December, an ITN news broadcast revealed that a bag had been left for 25 minutes. The pilot feels that fraud, especially on the part of the press, should be "dealt with severely." I am not wholeheartedly with him on that, however, because I feel that television did a service by demonstrating the dangerous lack of security that still exists—although I feel that frivolous interventions for the sake of publicity or entertainment should certainly be dealt with severely.
The pilot wants
far greater resources directed towards making sure that, once baggage has been checked in, it is loaded along with its owner".
It strikes me as dangerous that someone should be able to check in baggage, show a ticket to ride and perhaps never get on the plane. According to my informant, there are
new baggage tags which are generated by a baggage tag printer along with a number and its equivalent bar code.
He feels that that may solve the problem. I have not enough technical knowledge to know whether that is true, but I hope that the Secretary of State will look into it.
Finally, he asks for more stringent checks on vehicles entering the restricted area. He also says that he would like security personnel to be gainfully employed in surveillance activities inside the passenger terminal areas of airports. Those are all useful suggestions. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Committee that is to consider the Bill will take them on board.

Mr. Alan Amos: I had been hoping for some time to be called to speak in the debate, especially after flying up to my Hexham constituency to visit the site of a mid-air collison between two RAF jets. The sight of the wreckage and the damage done was horrific. It taught me something that I shall never forget. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for introducing the Bill at this time. The sooner that it is passed, the better.
In the limited time available to me, I shall concentrate on the aviation aspect of the debate. I warmly welcome the Bill and the increased security proposals announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend. Although the extra security arrangements announced after the Lockerbie disaster answered a number of the security questions that were asked, widespread concern about the lack of screening at airports remains.
The Sunday Times claimed in an article on 9 July 1989, six months after the Lockerbie disaster, that
packages that have not been searched or screened for explosives are being sent aboard passenger aircraft by commerical courier firms.
The newspaper sent a package, which could easily have contained explosives, from London to New York via Brussels, apparently one of the most secure air routes. The contents were not checked, either by hand or X-ray. When the package arrived in New York it had been neither opened nor screened. Although the airline responsible said afterwards that this type of incident should not happen, the fact is that it did. The worrying question is how many more times it has happened since.
I am aware of only one airline, E1 A1, that tests the security of its airline anonymously. In its third report on aircraft security, published in July last year, the Select Committee on Transport suggested that the best method


of testing the effectiveness of security methods was for inspectors to check the system in the same way as some journalists managed to do with ease and success last year. Reference was made to that point earlier this afternoon. I have no doubt that unannounced security checks of this nature would test security measures to a far greater degree than happens at present. It would certainly help to keep security staff alert.
The Select Committee recommended that inspectors should test the system by means of spot checks and by posing as would-be terrorists with inert devices. Any airline that wishes to provide its own additional security should be allowed to do so within a framework that is co-ordinated by the Secretary of State to ensure the best possible use of resources in terms of manpower and space at increasingly congested airports.
Following Lockerbie, aviation security advisers were reconstituted as an inspectorate, a move that I very much welcome. As the security research and development budget is being doubled, a move that I also very much welcome, my right hon. Friend may wish to consider the realistic assessment of airport security systems while the Bill is before the House. Proper and adequate screening is vital in any security system. However, if it is to be an effective means of countering terrorism, there has to be far greater co-operation between the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority, the airlines and any other bodies that may be involved.
I have travelled extensively throughout the United States and many other countries, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would recommend you to do so because it is very rewarding and most enjoyable. However, I have never experienced the same discomfort as I regularly suffer at terminal 1 at Heathrow any day of the week. In every airport that I have used in America, security controls have been well manned and well staffed. They have more than enough machines to cope with large influxes of passengers. The management at Heathrow would do well to consider ways of reducing the widening differences in standards of security management. Having regularly experienced the assault course that security control has become at Heathrow's terminal 1, I can only be pessimistic. We shall not attain better standards until the management work towards long-term goals rather than short-term realities.

Mr. Wilshire: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Amos: I should like to give way to my hon. Friend, but as time is limited I feel that I must continue my speech. I apologise to him.
I raised the issue with the general manager of terminal 1, Mr. Michael Bell. I congratulate him on admitting honestly in his letter to me concerning attempts to overcome inconvenience, crowding and delays at the security checks that
clearly we failed to overcome those problems.
He also agreed that
1989 has not been a year we can be proud of in terms of the service we have delivered to passengers waiting for security checks.
That was a very honest admission. I hope that it will be of some use to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amos: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for not giving way; I really must get on with my speech. A number of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
We are constantly being promised more machines, more staff and better facilities at our airports. We have heard it all before. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give us some idea of when he hopes there will be more staff and more machines? Terrorists thrive on promises. We must have machines and men in place on time. The art of good management must be to plan ahead to prevent difficulties rather than just to react to crises.

The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr Patrick McLoughlin): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Amos: I must give way to my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. McLoughlin: I should like to put on record the huge increase in the number of security staff that have been deployed at airports since 1988. At the major airports the number of security staff has increased from 2,384 to 3,599—an increase of over 51 per cent. That is commendable. Under our direction, airports have increased the number of their security staff to meet the requirements that we have imposed upon them.

Mr. Amos: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information, and I am happy to be the first to accept it. I have had discussions with the British Airports Authority. I know that it is doing a good job and that it is trying to get more staff, but it is not good enough. Matters must be improved. I ask BAA to reconsider its recruitment procedures. Exactly the same problem arose with London Underground. I was told that the problems there were caused by staff shortages. London Underground has now looked into its recruitment and retention procedures and says that it can now attract staff far more easily than was the case previously. There is room for improvement, but I acknowledge and accept what my hon. Friend says.
Time after time at Heathrow, inadequate numbers of security staff have to deal with increasing numbers of passengers. It is time that we had enough machines to cope with the demand and with the technical difficulties associated with detecting present-day terrorists, who are sophisticated and well organised. Although the machines at Heathrow are used extensively, large numbers of hand searches are still carried out. In my opinion, that is inefficient and slow and poses its own security threat as queues build up. There is no doubt that terrorism is helped by chaos and disruption.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend appears to be suggesting that machines are better than the hand searching of luggage and people, but the technology does not exist. Hand searching is still by far the best way to detect certain items.

Mr. Amos: I agree. But if hand searches are carried out on only a certain number of people, there is still a risk. The majority get through without being hand-searched.
Airports must introduce up-to-date, state-of-the-art technology to enable all baggage to be screened effectively. That would end the current haphazard, hit-or-miss system. We must act to prevent a repetition of the ridiculous situation that occurred in November 1988. It was reported in the national press that
the six American carriers flying from Gatwick asked for permission to install state-of-the-art colour x-ray machines,


capable of detecting plastic explosives such as Semtex. It took seven months to get permission for a trial, but the airlines were told that if they caused too much congestion they would have to withdraw them.
Cargo handling is also a major potential area of terrorist activity, where the opportunities are perhaps even greater for the planting of devices. Again I welcome the extension of the powers to be given to my right hon. Friend to help to deal with threats to secure areas. By giving more powers to the Secretary of State, we shall more easily be able to co-ordinate and direct the efforts of the very large number of agencies involved in airport security. However, I suggest to him one or two areas that he should carefully consider. It was claimed in a national newspaper that "last year"—1988—
nearly two-thirds of Britain's 1·2m tonnes of air freight went from Heathrow, but handling firms at the airport said the bulk of this was loaded on to planes with no checks at all.
The Select Committee was also concerned about that problem. It must be resolved.
I readily acknowledge that it would be extremely difficult to screen all hold baggage and cargo, but we must work towards that objective. I welcomed the announcement by the former Secretary of State for Transport on 24 April last year that he had set the security objective of screening all hold baggage on flights at higher risk, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider extending that screening process to all hold baggage on all international flights. The list of higher-risk flights and airlines seems to be growing every month.
In conclusion, I fully support the provision in clause 1 to introduce life sentences for terrorists. I hope that a life sentence will mean life imprisonment and that the sentences will not be discretionary but mandatory. It is essential to increase co-operation among countries on the extradition of terrorists. The system of extradition must be made quicker and easier so that terrorists will be left in no doubt about the punishment that they can expect. Those countries which refuse to co-operate, thus putting at risk the lives of every air traveller, should be prohibited and prevented from being allowed to participate in international air travel and cargo handling.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the measures contained in the Bill as far as they give effect to the Montreal protocol, the Rome convention and the fixed platforms protocol. Of course, in an ideal world none of these measures would be necessary, but we do not live in an ideal world, so certain precautions must be taken to maintain the safety of the travelling public. The safety of persons travelling within and to our country, whether they are passengers or crew, and the safety of the public at large must be one of our major concerns and in the forefront of our minds. Yet I am extremely worried by some of the provisions of the Bill. They give the Government of the day through the Secretary of State far-reaching powers which many years ago would not have been granted except in times of war or national emergency.
Many of the powers in the Bill are an extension of those already available through the Aviation Security Act 1982. However, the vast expansion of ground to be covered, the massive increase in the numbers of persons affected—including those authorised to carry out the powers and

those on the receiving end of them—and the huge amount of property involved cause me to stop, think and scrutinise.
Britain has always prided itself on the freedom and democracy that its people enjoy. It is one of those strange anomalies that to protect the freedom of our people—in this case, the freedom of movement—we give the Government and other designated people the very powers that in different circumstances could be used to take freedom away.
In the past 10 years, there has been a significant erosion of our civil liberties, much of it without cause. Although I call for an increase in security at our airports and harbours, it is imperative that before we pass the Bill we are sure that we know the full consequences of the actions contained in it and that we ensure that there are satisfactory methods for monitoring security and built-in safeguards against the possible abuse of any of the powers contained in the Bill.
I intend carefully to scrutinise all the clauses in Committee, but I hope that today the Minister will be able to put my mind at rest on one or two issues that cause me most concern.
Clause 21(3) states:
persons who may be specified in a direction … as the persons by whom any searches are to be carried out include members of any body of constables which the harbour authority has power to maintain in the harbour area, but not any other constables.
I understand that private security forces are included in the authorised body of constables that harbour authorities have the power to maintain. If the authorities are to fulfil their duties under the Bill, the number of private security personnel they employ will increase dramatically.

Mr. Shersby: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue that he has just raised is extremely serious? Is he aware that those constables are sworn by two justices under a Victorian Act of Parliament, the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, and that in effect a private police force is operating in those harbours which is not accountable to the public in the same way as the regular forces?

Mr. Fearn: I was not fully aware of that, but I am now.
Clause 23(4) states:
In so far as a direction under any of the preceding provisions of this Part of this Act requires searches to be carried out, or other measures to be taken, by constables, the direction may require the person to whom it is given to use his best endeavours to secure that constables will be duly authorised to carry, and will carry, firearms when carrying out the searches or taking the measures in question.
Can the Minister assure me that the two clauses I have mentioned will not mean that private security forces will carry arms or be authorised to use arms, particularly when our own metropolitan and county police forces do not carry firearms and are still restricted in the authorisation of their use? It is worth noting that the Port of London authority police do not carry arms and have given up their firearms certificates.
To enable them to carry out duties under the Bill, constables would have to apply for and be issued with firearms certificates. I think that they will be reluctant to do that. Whatever reply the Minister cares to give, will he also give his assurance that the two clauses will be reconsidered and that clause 23 will at least be drafted more tightly so that there is no room for loose interpretation?
It is clear that more security personnel, private or otherwise, will be employed and more people will be searched as a result of the Bill. It is worth mentioning that the measures and directives in the Bill extend to the owners of any business that may be sited or conducted in a restricted zone. Our harbours do not have sophisticated technical equipment such as that at Tilbury which allows for the easy and efficient search of cruise passengers and their luggage. It is unlikely that money will be made available for extensive provision of such equipment, so many of the searches will be superficial or will involve body contact.
I understand that the current requirement at airports is that one in three persons must undergo a body contact search and that those searches are carried out by private security personnel. Given that the numbers of people undergoing searches will vastly increase as a result of the measures in the Bill, will the Minister say what rules and regulations he intends to make, other than those given in the directions, to cover the conduct of those searches to ensure that there is no abuse of power, and whether there will be any directions as to the number of female constables to be employed?
I have already taken up more time than I intended, but before I leave other matters of concern to be considered in Committee, I shall make one final request of the Minister. If my reading of the Bill is correct and its implementation will result in increased use of private security personnel, will he consider introducing legislation to regulate and control such forces and will he ensure that the Bill makes it quite obvious where the lines of responsibility lie in respect of security personnel? At the moment it is far from clear who has the every-day responsibility.
Taking those matters into consideration, and in good faith, I give my and my party's qualified support to the Bill in the interest of preventing further disasters such as Lockerbie and the Italian cruise ship hijack.

Mr. Michael Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation and wish to declare that interest. I welcome the Bill and its provisions for securing more effective implementation of aviation security measures.
My constituents live close to Heathrow airport, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), and strongly support the measures to improve airport security. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing the legislation promptly. We in Uxbridge believe that it is vital to suppress unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation.
It is certainly time that Britain gave effect to the Montreal protocol. It must he right that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment should be available to punish offenders who intentionally, by means of any device, substance or weapon, commit an act of violence at aerodromes serving civil international aviation. Lockerbie demonstrated the need for that; the Government responded commendably to the challenge that it presented, and for that reason I welcome those parts of the Bill dealing with civil aviation.
However, I express the concern of the police about some of the powers to be conferred by part III, which deals with ships and harbour areas. In particular, I seek clarification of the powers in clauses 20 to 23, which

empower the Secretary of State to give harbour authorities directions requiring searches to be carried out by constables or other specified persons. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fern) referred to those clauses in his perceptive speech, and I am delighted to be able to follow him in seeking clarification of them.
It appears that those clauses will enable the Secretary of State to ensure increased security at ports, but they will allow persons other than constables to enforce the provisions of the Bill relating to the protection of ships and the security of harbours.
Clause 21 contains powers to require other persons to promote searches in harbours. The hon. Member for Southport rightly asked what subsection (3) means. I can only assume that it means that harbour undertakers can rely on special constables who are sworn under the provisions of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. A few days earlier, those constables could easily have been employees of a private security firm, but suddenly they would become a harbours, docks and piers police force. They could operate inside the harbour or dock or one mile outside it, but they would not be accountable to the House or the public in the same way as the regular police force. I have been corresponding with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor about. that for the past six months.
I draw the House's attention to the powers contained in that Victorian Act of Parliament, which are being used by major harbours, docks and piers operators, most recently at Parkeston quay. I believe that the House should turn its attention to that, because it is unsatisfactory for powers conferred by Parliament in 1847 to be exercised in that way. It is wrong in the light of current police practice. I did some research and discovered that that Act was passed by the House without debate, but it is high time that it was debated again.
The Bill sets out a series of new offences, but the new powers granted to my right hon. Friend and his successors must be examined in detail in Commitee. I shall comment briefly on a few of those powers. Clause 21 grants the Secretary of State power to require a harbour authority or operator of a ship to allow searches of persons or property of ships before taking on board the persons or property concerned or putting to sea. Clause 22 allows the Secretary of State a more general power to require a harbour authority to use its best endeavours to conduct searches of the harbour area or any ship, property or persons in the harbour.
Clause 23 allows the Secretary of State another general power to give directions to a harbour authority or operator of a ship and sets out in general terms the Secretary of State's requirements for ensuring the safety of the harbour area and ships.
The searches that may be required pursuant to clauses 21 and 22 may be conducted by constables or anyone specified in the Secretary of State's directions. What does that mean? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me when he replies to the debate, because those powers are supplemented by clause 24, which allows the Secretary of State to specify the qualifications of a person carrying out a search and, in particular, states that the Secretary of State may require such a person to have specified training and experience. Will my hon. Friend say what sort of training and experience will be required by those persons, who apparently will not be members of the regular police force?
Two matters are reserved to police constables. First, in clause 16, a ship's master is empowered to arrest a person whom he believes has committed an offence under the Act, but he must then deliver that person to a police constable or an immigration officer. Secondly, the effect of clauses 25 and 24(4) taken together is that only police constables may bear arms. That point was made by the hon. Member for Southport.
Additional powers are given to the persons designated to conduct a search. I draw the House's attention to clause 22(5), which makes it an offence to obstruct such a person exercising his powers under the Bill. Someone doing so will be subject to arrest under the present so-called citizen's power of arrest. Clause 25(4) entitles a designated person to use reasonable force in exercising his powers under the Bill, and clause 33 makes it an offence to give deceptive or misleading statements to any employee of the harbour authority or the operator of a ship.
Further powers are granted by clause 32 to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to conduct an inspection of any ship or harbour with a view to deciding whether the Secretary of State needs to exercise his other powers under the Bill.
The powers granted to the Secretary of State by the clauses to which I referred briefly allow him to lay down a complete code for the policing and security arrangements at any harbour in the country. I hope that when the Committee considers those clauses it will ask penetrating questions about the codes of practice for policing that can be laid down by the Secretary of State. The Bill does not specify how the Secretary of State must use those powers, and, in particular, does not specify whether the powers of search referred to in clauses 21 and 22 must be exercised by a constable or some other person designated by him. In this country, we are used to such powers being exercised by properly trained and responsible police officers, who are accountable to their county police forces and ultimately to elected representatives on local authorities and in the House. Before we contemplate moving away from that long-established procedure, those powers should be more carefully investigated.
The directions that the Secretary of State may give in accordance with clause 23 are, so far as I can see, open-ended. He could give directions requiring the harbour in question to be policed by police constables appointed under the Police Act 1964. Alternatively, he may permit the harbour authority to entrust the harbour's security arrangements to a private security company and then make further directions for the organisation of the private security firm, including, if he thinks fit, directions regarding the qualifications, experience and training of the security guards in question. Those are substantial powers, and I am sure that when considering the drafting of the Bill my right hon. Friend felt it necessary to take them.
The Bill does not cast in stone the arrangements that must be made for policing harbours. Everything will turn on the directions given by the Secretary of State for a particular harbour or for all harbours in the country. However, if the Secretary of State intended to entrust the policing of all the harbours to the regular police service there would be no necessity for the additional powers in the Bill.
If a private security firm is to be used, the Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to lay down the requirements which it must follow. That power will supplement and replace the requirements of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to which I have referred and of similar legislation which merely requires two magistrates to appoint any constable and to be satisfied as to his fitness.
The real question raised by this part of the Bill is the content of the Secretary of State's directions. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will reassure me and the police service that the provisions have not been included to expand the provision of private police forces or security guards at harbours and docks in the United Kingdom.
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to participate in the debate. I hope that the important points that I have made will be investigated carefully in Committee.

Mr. Frank Doran: The debate so far has focused mainly on airport security. That is inevitable, given the dreadful Lockerbie disaster. However, I shall concentrate on offshore installations, which are covered in part II, and particularly the provisions of clause 8. I shall do so not simply because I am a lawyer and lawyers are inevitably pedantic. It strikes me that clause 8, with its subsequent interpretation clauses, raises a serious issue. I have no quibble with the fact that oil platforms and offshore installations have been included in this measure. Clearly, they are isolated and vulnerable and the sort of target that could be the object of terrorist activity. It is important that such installations are included in the Bill.
I am worried about the apparently wide powers which the Secretary of State has included in the Bill. Clause 8 provides:
A person who unlawfully, by the use of force or"—
these are the important words—
by threats of any kind, seizes a fixed platform and exercises control of it, commits an offence".
The clause goes on to say that that offence is punishable by possible imprisonment for life.
Offshore installations are not like ships or airlines. They tend to be fixed and they are the ordinary workplace of some 25,000 offshore workers. Like every other workplace, they have been and inevitably will be the subject of industrial action. I am worried about the implications of the clause for future industrial action. An industrial dispute about a year ago involved a sit-in. In such circumstances, it is difficult to see that the Bill would apply.
Unfortunately, offences occasionally occur in industrial disputes. The definition of "unlawfully" in clause 8 is the commission of an act in the United Kingdom which constitutes an offence under the law, in whatever part of the United Kingdom. The clause makes no attempt to define the gravity or the nature of that offence. The serious consequences of clause 8 could come into force simply by the commission of a breach of the peace or from disorderly conduct on an oil platform as a direct consequence of industrial action. That worries me.
I said in my defence earlier that I did not wish to be seen as a pedantic lawyer. The Minister smiles—I shall not repeat that phrase. I do not pluck my interpretation of clause 8 out of the air. In two incidents in the North sea


recently, the work force were threatened with criminal action during industrial action. The first incident involved two full-time trade union officials. I cannot go into the detail of this case, because a report has been made to the procurator fiscal. I shall not name the officials involved. They were officers of the International Transport Workers Federation entitled under International Labour Organisation conventions to board vessels to inspect the quality of vessels. They boarded a ship in my constituency. They were invited on board by the crew because of industrial action about the conditions on the vessel. The response of the master of the vessel was immediately to call the police. Despite their office and the powers given to them under the convention, the officers were arrested and charged. The matter is now before the procurator fiscal.
Another more serious case involved the vessel the MSV Stadive. It is an emergency response vessel covering the red sector of the North sea, which is the Shetland basin. The crew had been employed for some eight years by Seaforth Maritime. The operating company, Shell, decided to change the contract. It gave it to a new company, Deitsmann. All the officers and employees on that ship were involved in every action which the ship undertook.
In particular, the crew had the distasteful task of collecting the bodies after the Chinook disaster. They were also the crew that responded to the Ocean Odyssey tragedy. Despite the danger, the vessel was placed over the well drilled by the Ocean Odyssey, which had blown. It was there for three weeks while the well was capped. The crew are dedicated and highly experienced. Its whole future was placed in jeopardy because the oil company decided to change the contract, for whatever reason.
The previous employers said that no redundancy payments would be made because it was transferring its undertaking and the new employers refused to take on the obligations. Industrial action followed. The immediate consequence was that every member of the crew involved in the industrial action was threatened with criminal proceedings. They were threatened by the owners of the vessel that unless they gave up their industrial action they would be subject to prosecution under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 and liable to a maximum penalty of a £2,000 fine.
I do not raise the interpretation of clause 8 lightly. The problems that I envisage already occur in the North sea. I have given two specific examples of how the law is used to threaten and intimidate the work force.
I welcome the legislation, and I believe that it should apply to offshore installations. It has a serious purpose, which we all support. However, in achieving that serious purpose, it is important that we do not create other difficulties. The potential difficulties that I have identified would have a serious and damaging effect on industrial relations law. I have highlighted the effect in the North sea.
If operated in an oppressive way, the legislation could bring the law into disrepute. That is something that we all want to avoid. I look forward to a clear and unequivocal statement from the Minister confirming that that is not the intention of the legislation. If it is not, and the Government's intention is to fulfil the aims of the convention and deal with the serious problems of terrorism, I look forward to their supporting a suitable amendment to rectify the potential difficulties that I have outlined.

Mr. James Hill: I have listened intently today, because I hoped that the views of the many port directors in the United Kingdom would be more adequately expressed. The Bill ratifies the International Maritime Organisation convention for the suppression of unlawful acts, but the Government's drafting of the Bill seems to be overkill.
To take an average port in the United Kingdom such as Southampton, how on earth can 100 per cent. security of operation be achieved in a port which not only stretches for several miles but has been rebuilt with marinas, yuppie housing, several factories and even ancillary industrial units? That category of building is increasing all the time.
I am aware that perhaps a mistake was made some years ago when the British Transport docks police were disbanded. Associated British Ports no longer wanted that force, and it took on security officers. If the Bill goes through, I am sure that that will be the practice in the future. I cannot imagine that the police force could possibly recruit the numbers necessary to supervise the security of the 19 ports owned by Associated British Ports, let alone the security of the many other ports besides those.

Mr. Shersby: On what does my hon. Friend base that statement? I am certain that the police could be made available, and surely it would be better to recruit regular officers than a private security force.

Mr. Hill: The problem is that the police are always desperate for further manpower, and one must not forget that they have their normal duties to undertake. I believe that the recruiting programme for the police force is geared to a budget from the Home Office. I do not believe that the Home Office would increase that budget to ensure that every port in the United Kingdom was covered by the police.
No one has mentioned the recruitment of people with great expertise. I should have thought that many officers of the Special Air Services could be recruited to become what I would describe as the "el supremo" of security. I was horrified earlier when someone said that, when an emergency arises at a major airport, three or four different organisations are involved in dealing with it. I am sure that the same thing would happen should an emergency arise at a major port. If highly trained people were employed at the top, it might mean better training of the security staff. When going through Heathrow or Gatwick, I have never had a great deal of faith in the ability of the security staff to meet a real emergency should it arise.
The main source of danger has never been tackled. I have often thought of the Nigerian aircraft that was carrying a Nigerian ex-Minister in a box. I am sure that the Secretary of State remembers that incident. Naturally, that could not happen in this country, although we would not necessarily want such Ministers back. Diplomatic cargo and diplomatic bags have never been scrutinised to any degree. Perhaps some scrutiny is undertaken, and good luck to those who do it, but the lack of proper scrutiny of such cargo and bags represents one of the big weaknesses of our security operations. Any small country with 20 or 30 diplomats can invariably get its baggage on to an aircraft and in or out of the country without scrutiny.
The expense of providing massive security at a port such as Southampton can be paid for only by those who use that port. Such a cost could be a great inconvenience


to the people who work in that port and, at the end of the day, those extra charges will be reflected in the cost of goods throughout the country. As a word of caution, my right hon. Friend should go softly, softly on the maritime side, but he deserves a 100 per cent. mark for all his efforts on aviation.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: There is, unhappily, a constant freemasonry of terror. There are nations that, when they feel that they are losing the political argument, will not hesitate to use other nations' civilians as bargaining pawns. The nation that decides to blow 500 people out of the air is not particularly committed to democratic ideals or interested in the general security of the travelling public. For that reason, the Bill is tremendously important.
The Secretary of State will know that the Select Committee on Transport was careful in the evidence it took not to highlight certain areas. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of all sorts of questions that I do not believe it would be politic or sensible to discuss in the House. I must stress to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that I am not convinced that the present security arrangements at the most used airports in this country, or even at the smaller ones, are even beginning to be adequate. At one of the busiest airports, Heathrow, I saw to my considerable horror that things have reached the point where at least one major airline interprets the need to question travelling passengers about security as acceptably dealt with by having those questions pinned to the check-in desk.
E1 A1 is one of the few international airlines that is capable of offering safe transport to its passengers. The Secretary of State knows that it was able to find and to identify the girl, the dupe, carrying the Semtex because of its profiling techniques and its highly trained employees. Those employees were not only on the ball, but found out immediately about the problem. They did so by taking the time to question and because that airline had put security at the top of its list, not at the bottom.
All airlines, particularly the large international ones, make the constant plea that they will never have sufficient time to undertake the profiling techniques necessary because their passengers demand constant and rapid movement from the airport into the aircraft. Those of us who constantly travel on airlines realise that the speed of transmission from the land to the air is becoming slower and slower—often for acceptable reasons. What is not evident, however, is that a high level of security checking is carried out by airlines. A lot of luggage is never checked and a great deal of cargo should be subjected to much tighter security procedures.
The travelling public need better and stronger security measures. If there are no machines capable of identifying Semtex, only hand searching and profiling will do. If security machines are used to screen baggage, the people using them must be trained. It is not good enough to have someone sitting in front of the screen for 25 minutes looking at moving lines of luggage with no idea what he is identifying and no ability to do anything effective about the speed of his work. Machines must be properly calibrated and the staff must be properly paid and trained.
Above all, airlines must stop saying that passengers are not prepared to pay for safety and are not prepared for time to be taken to check their luggage properly. All sensible travellers want to get to the other end in one piece—that should not be too much to ask. When I get on a plane with my family, I want to get off with all of them with me, having been safely carried to our destination. That means that proper cargo space must be provided and that proper screening machines should be used by all the major airlines.
The Secretary of State must allow his new inspectorates direct access to him. That is the only way in which the inspectors can communicate their point of view. They could then tell him that they have checked an airport, that it will not do and that something must be done immediately. That point has been made time and time again to Secretaries of State for Transport by the Select Commitee on Transport and by others.
It can take an hour to get a perfectly ordinary bag into or out of an airport. On Monday, the absolutely unimaginable was achieved at terminal 2 and it took an hour and three quarters to unload the baggage because three major planes arrived at the same time. That shows that passengers spend time in airports. However, time is not usefully deployed by those who should have passenger safety at the top of their list.

Mr. David Wilshire: Before I come to my main points, so much nonsense has been spoken this afternoon by hon. Members who have not researched their facts that I should like, first, to refer to that. The point made by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) cast a slur on a fair number of my constituents who watch the X-ray screens and check the baggage at airports. They are highly trained and skilled. At Heathrow airport alone last year, about 250,000 items were detected by such skilled people, and to suggest otherwise is grossly unfair and something that I cannot accept.
I hope that all hon. Members share my enthusiasm for the principle of better security. I also hope that all Conservative Members share my contempt for some of the cheap, party political point scoring that has been going on since Lockerbie among the Opposition.
In the few minutes left in this debate, I wish to look beyond those principles and the search for scapegoats or apportioning blame. If we are to take full advantage of the opportunity provided by the Bill to make still more progress, we must look ahead. If we are to make progress and ensure that we do so, we need to establish some tests to use to determine whether the Bill and its principles will achieve what we seek.
There are three tests. First, will the Bill lead to practical proposals? Secondly, will the proposals that come from the Bill look to the future rather than the past? Thirdly, will the Bill's proposals involve everybody and everything, rather than, as suggested earlier, lead to another bout of buck-passing and attempts to pass the responsibility on to someone else?
Clearly, first and foremost we must ensure that the proposals are practical. Raising expectations which lead nowhere is no way to treat the travelling public. Announcing—as the Federal Aviation Administration in Washington did after the Lockerbie tragedy—a six-point action plan that was incapable of practical implementation


is inexcusable. Calling for more and better equipment for checking people and luggage when technology cannot cope is irresponsible. Pretending that such equipment exists elsewhere is even worse. The new American TNA detection machine is huge, heavy and slow, its safety has yet to he proved, and there are only two in operation in the world. The American Government and the public have not yet determined whether the gamma radiation emitted by such machines is safe.
With all this in mind, it is important to understand that a Bill that simply gives powers to the Secretary of State is no guarantee for effective action. For the Bill to pass the first test, the Government need to spell out how they will use the enabling powers. When the Government come to use those powers, they must state what steps must be taken to comply with their directions. It simply will not be good enough to fall back on saying that it is for the person to do it and for the courts to interpret what that direction means.
We must also ensure that there is a sensible and flexible balance between effective security and convenient travel. Security of 100 per cent. will always be impossible unless we ground all aircraft and close all airports. Applying ultra-stringent security rules to all airports is not practical, because the travelling public will not tolerate it. Therefore, it is important to remember that, whatever changes the Bill might produce, risk assessment will remain a vital part of the future of aviation security.
The second test is whether the Bill's proposals look forward rather than backward. An all too common and unfortunate British habit is that, when faced with a tragedy, we search for a scapegoat and, with hindsight say, "If only this, that or the other had been done, the tragedy would never have happened." Opposition Members have absolute mastery of such skills. No fact is too obvious, no bereavement too tragic, for somebody to go in for a bout of finger pointing and point scoring.
Unlike the Opposition and their attempts to score cheap points, terrorists look forward, not backward, and ask what new methods they can use because everyone seems to be trying to close the loopholes that previously existed. If the Bill simply focuses on the past and on ensuring that another Lockerbie does not happen, terrorists will come up with a novel way to carry out their particularly nasty activities in the sky.
The hue and cry that has come out of Lockerbie smacks of looking back rather than forward. Of course we must guard against tragedies such as Lockerbie, but we must try to think like the terrorist and ask ourselves, "What next, where next and how next can we do something differently?".
In this context, I join other Members in drawing the Government's attention to the potential loopholes that exist in the cargo operation. There is an urgent need to re-examine that activity. Looking to the future also means trying to best-guess the technology that the terrorist will use in future. There is little to be gained from finally deciding how to discover Semtex, just as the terrorist moves on to another type of explosive.
The third test is simply to ask whether the proposals involve everyone and everything. In a global activity such as aviation, unilateral action can never be wholly effective. The Bill cannot hope to provide a total cure; only international co-operation can do that. What is the use of a super-secure Heathrow when Athens airport still holds about as much water as a colander? To ensure that the proposals involve everyone, the Bill must also have a

domestic dimension. To deserve support, it must. ensure that it catches everyone in its net and requires the participation of everybody in the industry and the travelling public.
Therefore, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) about the control authorities being exempt. They must be caught in the checking requirements, for no other reason than that they are open to blackmail to take items airside.
If we are to involve everybody, we must include the Government on a long-term basis. They must avoid the trap of regarding the Bill as the way to discharge their duty to help improve aviation security, and of believing that, having done so, they need only revert to directing and testing. However many Bills the House passes, and however many new measures are introduced at the airports, terrorism will never be eliminated while the causes that motivate the bomber still exist in the world. I am sure that the Government need little persuasion to play their part in ensuring that terrorism is made unnecessary by curing international problems.
There must be tests to ensure that the Bill is right and leads to practical proposals. Will it ensure that its proposals look forward rather than backward? Will it ensure that the proposals involve everyone and everything? If it will, it deserves the support of us all.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, I pay tribute to the young policemen among my constituents from Whitburn, Livingston and elsewhere who, day after day, went to Lockerbie and had the gruesome task of trying to clear up the mess. What those young people went through was formidable.
Secondly, to save time, will the Department look at my speech on the Consolidated Fund just before Christmas, in which I outlined in detail at 5.30 am various International Air Transport Association problems in relation to the importation of birds and other livestock into this country? Everything that I want to say is in that speech and I hope that the Department will reflect on those matters.
Thirdly, some of us believe that the laws—difficult though they are—on the immunity of diplomatic bags must be changed because, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) said, abuse is going on.
Fourthly, I interrupted the Secretary of State earlier to refer to an answer of 14 December on airport security. I am not wholly convinced. Of course there are difficulties about providing sophisticated equipment for developing countries if there are not enough people to operate it, but the matter should be reconsidered because it is relatively easy to put lethal baggage on at some rather remote airport, and once it is in the system it is much more difficult to identify it when it is transferred from aircraft to aircraft.
I undertook to sit down at 6.40 pm.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Snape.

Mr. Steen: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting all day to speak—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the Front-Bench spokesman.

Mr. Peter Snape: It is a sad and frequent occurrence on these occasions that hon. Members from both sides who want to participate in debates do not, for various reasons, have the opportunity to do so. I and the Minister agreed to take the minimum possible time and I can only apologise to hon. Members who have had to truncate their speeches or who have not been called.
The Bill will strengthen security at Britain's air and sea ports. The Opposition will support it, as we would support any Bill with such good intentions. We welcome the Bill, but as we have made clear in the debate we believe that it has a number of fundamental defects that must be remedied. I give notice to the Under-Secretary of State that we shall seek to deal with those defects and flaws in Committee.
The Bill does not go far enough in its attempt to curtail the threat of activities likely to endanger aircraft, ships, their crews and the travelling public. Our main objection to the Bill has to do with funding. There is no significant increase in funding and no proper provision for the security that we would like at our airfields and sea ports.
Whenever the Opposition suggest that the Government are not doing enough, Conservatives ask, "Who will pay?" They always ask where the money will come from. We have made it plain, as did the Select Committee, that the restoration of an aviation security fund would go a long way towards providing the necessary money properly to protect passengers and crew.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the Select Committee agreed with us. In paragraph 30 of its third report it pointed out:
The levy did provide a means whereby airlines and the travelling public could see how much they were paying for security and make a judgment as to whether that represented value for money"—
a key phrase that should appeal to Conservatives, who always talk about value for money. This Select Committee, with a Conservative majority, emphasised that point and made a recommendation that we wholeheartedly support.
The Select Committee also made a number of criticisms about inadequacies that it perceived in aviation security, and went on to point out in paragraph 31:
The whole ethos of financing security appears to be reactive: to provide funds to tighten up loopholes after terrorists have demonstrated their existence.
It is the custom for those who wind up debates to refer to speeches that have been made during them—a custom that I have always supported and tried to follow. With only six minutes left I am in some difficulty about doing so today, but I want to draw the attention of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who made the last and worst speech from the Conservative Benches, to the Select Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Wilshire: I take that as a compliment.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman would; that illustrates his mental capacities. Pomposity in one so young is not a particularly attractive trait, but added to self-delusion it gives me even more cause to worry about what I hope will be the hon. Gentleman's short career in the House.
The problems and inadequacies in security that we have pointed out, especially since Lockerbie, have needed to be pointed out to the Government—we make no bones about that. It is the purpose of the Opposition to point out

perceived inadequacies of the Government, and we shall go on pointing out shortcomings in aviation and maritime security and suggesting alternatives and how they might be funded.
The Government are not willing to commit extra funding to the relevant security services and the other authorities that will need it. For instance, the Bill does not mention extra resources for Customs and Excise, whose officers will presumably have some part to play in administering the extra security that we want. I hope that when the Committee of Selection decides the membership of the Standing Committee to consider this Bill it will examine some of the contributions from Members today and select accordingly. I hope, for example, that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), to whom I always refer as representing the intellectual wing of the Conservative party, will be a member of the Standing Committee, because his Select Committee has made a valuable contribution and we should value his expertise during the passage of the legislation.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out that when Mr. Gregory Peck left an aircraft at Heathrow he was met by a great number of journalists, which must have caused him enormous concern. I hope that he managed to break the habit of a lifetime and toss them the odd crumb of news as he made his way down the gangway. But the serious point about the Government's attitude during the past year, as the Select Committee said, is that the Government's proposals to tighten security at Heathrow are aimed at least as much at journalists as at terrorists. Some Conservative Members did not like it, but my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly said that the first people to have punitive action taken against them and to have airside passes removed were those guilty of taking photographs of a previous Secretary of State leaving an aeroplane. That is no way in which to instil confidence that the Government's intentions are honourable.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) rightly reminded us that some clauses refer to maritime safety and the ports. He and the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) pointed out the problems that arise now, and are likely to arise in the future, in the recruitment of security staff with some of the duties of constables but with none of their responsibilities. Both hon. Gentlemen know the reasons behind such recruitment. Security staff working 70 hours a week for £1·75 per hour are cheaper than police constables whose pay is nationally agreed and whose conditions of service are laid down. When Conservative Members point out the deficiencies, I wish that occasionally they would point out to their Front Bench spokesmen that public sector expenditure is not necessarily a bad thing. Reducing public sector expenditure by cutting the number of police constables employed at Britain's ports in no way demonstrates the Government's concern about the safety and future security of such installations.
The Bill does not go far enough, and in Committee we shall attempt to persuade the Government of that. I hope that when the Minister is in an environment where a little more time is available, he will be better prepared to listen than has been the Secretary of State or the previous Secretary of State. If he is prepared to listen, improved security at our airports and sea ports can be achieved. That is the desire of both sides of the House.

The Minister of Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): I am pleased to note that basically all hon. Members have given a warm welcome to the legislation. It is important that as much as is possible we have total unity in our attempt to ensure that the security at our airports and ports is as good as is expected.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was, yet again, clutching at straws. There have been a number of changes during the past 12 months. The amount of money now spent by airports on security has vastly increased and the number of people they employ in carrying out security checks has also increased. The British Airports Authority employed 2,000 people in December 1988; the number increased to 2,981 by January of this year. That significant improvement is because of the directions issued by the Department of Transport. The authority realises that security is vital not only to the House but to the industry and to the travelling public. It is in the interests of both the airlines and the airports to ensure that they are used as safely as possible.
Neither I nor the Government accept the idea that there must be a central collected fund to ensure that those improvements are administered. The best way to ensure that security is implemented by the airports is by direction. If they fail to carry out our directions, we shall take the action that will he available to us under the legislation. If airports fail to carry out our directions, they can expect to be prosecuted. I assure the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that the Government will prosecute where it is necessary.
Of the Select Committee's 28 recommendations last year, the Government accepted 21, and we hope that they will be implemented as soon as possible. However, they cannot be implemented overnight, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East accepted that.
A number of interesting points were raised during the debate but I cannot answer all of them as we have only a short time. I shall write to those hon. Members that I have not answered. We will have a number of opportunities during Committee to discuss the Bill in greater detail and to consider some of the arguments. I hope that we can also deal with some of the fears expressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) expressed his concern that the searching of customs and immigration officers should not be excluded. I assure him that we gave careful consideration to that point, and only those with warrant cards will be exempt. If there is still a difficulty, a senior officer can be called. That was one of the recommendations of the Transport Select Committee, but apparently not when those members were responding to emergency calls. A better clarification of our system would be to have a policy wholly about warrant officers and people carrying warrant cards.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) made some strange comments at the beginning of his speech. He suggested that the Bill would give us too many powers. I am not sure how we can have too many powers when we are trying to defeat terrorists. In some cases those powers are reserve powers. On the marine aspect we are merely setting up a body similar to that which already exists for aviation. That does not mean that we can mirror-image

everything that we do on aviation, but we shall consider individual ports, and to have the power of direction at some ports is welcome.
I hope that that goes some way to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). Some ports have already taken many of the precautions that we desire. An article in this morning's Lloyd's List welcomed us having those powers if the need arose. It would be irresponsible if the legislation were passed without introducing those powers.
I understand the comments and concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and in Committee we shall carefully consider his points. Concern was expressed that private security firms could carry firearms. That will not be the position. We are in discussion with the Home Office on the future of the docks police force. I hope that I can arrange for my hon. Friend to receive a good answer to his outstanding correspondence, and that we can erase some of his fears during Committee.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) expressed some fears about whether clause 8 could be used in an industrial dispute. Although I accept that the powers are widely drawn, it is because of the background of terrorism. Anything that we do under those powers would need the permission of the Attorney-General or the procurator fiscal in Scotland. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman need not be too worried about the use of those powers.
The speeches of hon. Members on both sides have clearly supported the Government's determination to continue to develop and improve our security against international terrorists. The legislation will enable the Government and the aviation and maritime industries, as partners in a common cause of protecting the passengers and crew of aircrafts and ships, to develop and improve the security measures at our airports and seaports.
The new legislation, taken together with the Aviation Security Act 1982, will provide the vital regulatory framework for security. However, to have effective security, we must look to the security staff at our airports and seaports, to the airline and shipping operators, who are in the front line. It is also vital that all who work at airports should be aware of the constant need for security, and should co-operate in playing their part in the security procedures. Security also requires the co-operation, patience and forbearance of the passengers. The year since Lockerbie has shown the readiness of passengers to help with the security procedures. I hope that the Bill receives the support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

AVIATION AND MARITIME SECURITY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Aviation and Maritime Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. McLaughlin.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be for the convenience of the House if we suspended the proceedings for one minute. I suggest that there would be no point in proceeding with the draft Co-operative Development Agency (Winding-up and Dissolution) Order 1989, since private business comes on at 7 o'clock.

Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Anxious as ever to be helpful, perhaps I might make a brief comment. One would have thought that a Government Whip would have done the job that I am now performing. As we have dealt with the money resolution, perhaps I may seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about the composition of the Standing Committee.
It is custom and practice for the Committee of Selection to consider carefully those who have made contributions to the Second Reading debate when deciding the membership of the Standing Committee. I am aware of a few Conservative Members who have the proper expertise in the subject but who were not able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and speak during the debate. I hope that I shall not make myself any more unpopular with them when I suggest that they might be able to make their contributions during the Committee stage, when at least their remarks would be appreciated by Opposition Members, if not by Conservative Members.

Mr. Speaker: I respond to that point of order in the spirit in which it was made, because it is always pleasant to deal with a point made by an hon. Member who has had some experience of the management of the business of the House. I am sure that what he said will have been carefully noted by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, whose responsibility it is.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House will recall that there have been a number of opportunities in the previous two years and three months to consider the merits of the Bill. We debated the measure at considerable length on Second Reading and we had the opportunity of considering it in the Private Bill Committee. The special report which that Committee produced has been available to the House, and several hon. Members on both sides have referred to it.

Mr. Michael Welsh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On various occasions when the Bill has been discussed, the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has either not spoken or has spoken so quickly that we have not been able to understand him. The fact that our debates are now being televised should not make any difference to our proceedings. In other words, should he not proceed as he has proceeded before, and speak so quickly that nobody can understand him?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Brown.

Mr. Brown: I shall speak at a pace which I hope will enable the House in general and the hon. Gentleman in particular to understand what I am saying. As the comment was once made that I owed it to the House to give an outline of the purposes and benefits of the Bill, I shall do that briefly, bearing in mind the fact that Opposition Members will want time in which to contribute to the debate.
I was honoured and proud to have the opportunity to bring the Bill before the House on behalf of the promoters. As the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, I am proud to represent the port of Immingham, which is operated by Associated British Ports, a company that was brought into the private sector by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he was Secretary of State for Transport. I served on my first Standing Committee in the 1980–81 Session, when my right hon. Friend privatised that company, with the result that it is now so successful that it can raise funds from the private sector. For the development that is proposed under the powers in the Bill, it has raised £30 million to develop the port of Immingham.
Associated British Ports is seeking these powers simply to bring the port of Immingham into the 21st century. The port is at present limited in the size of vessels that it can take because of the lock gates. The Bill would enable Associated British Ports to build a jetty into the River Humber so that the largest vessels in the world—which are currently unable to come to United Kingdom ports and instead go to ports such as Rotterdam, thereby depriving Britain's ports of vital revenues—could come here.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House on how many occasions he has visited South Africa and at whose invitation he went there?

Mr. Brown: I would be happy to do that, although I fear that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out order were I to go into that subject in the context in which the hon. Gentleman raised it. The entries in the Register of Members' Interests are available to the hon. Gentleman. All the information that he requires is there. I last visited South Africa in January 1989 at my own expense. I paid for my aeroplane ticket and hotel accommodation.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When we previously debated this measure, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised a point of order concerning an hon. Member who, he said, was sleeping on the Bench below the Gangway. Although we have only just started to debate the Bill, I note that already a Member is asleep on the Bench beyond the Bar.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House takes no account of what happens beyond the Bar.

Mr. Brown: The Bill applies not only to the port of Immingham. New port facilities are also proposed for King's Lynn which I know are welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), and for the Port Talbot Associated British Ports facility.
There has been some controversy during the passage of the Bill, and some Opposition Members have been concerned about the implications for the coal industry were the Bill to become law. I reassert, as I have done on many occasions, that the Bill is not concerned with coal imports. It is for the electricity and coal industries to work out between themselves whether more coal should be imported.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Brown: I will gladly give way to one of the several Opposition Members who are endeavouring to interrupt me when I have completed the matter I am now raising.
Coal contracts have been negotiated successfully between British Coal and the new private electricity companies that will shortly come into being. The whole House, and certainly hon. Members who represent coal mining constituencies, will join British Coal in expressing satisfaction at the successful negotiations that were completed towards the end of 1989. So there need be no doubt that the Bill will in any way damage the British coal industry, to the success of which we look forward in the years to come.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing coal. I tried to intervene earlier to make a point about transport. He said that the Bill would represent a £30 million investment at Immingham port. May we have an assurance that that port will not bring grievous disadvantage to people living in the areas through which the lorries will pour as a result of that unnecessary port development?
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the House considered the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill it was pointed out that a reputable survey had been carried out—I am sure that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) will confirm this—which showed that we did not need vast expenditure on additional port capacity in the United Kingdom because we had quite enough already?

Mr. Brown: The great advantage of Associated British Ports being in the private sector is that it can decide what market opportunities are available to it. It is for ABP, in considering market circumstances, to make the decisions, Thankfully, now that we no longer have the old British transport docks board, it is not for this House to make such decisions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I would be the most likely Member of the House to receive the most representations if the Bill were to be detrimental to my constituents. I have received no representations from any other constituency about the transport implications.
Immingham docks are now linked to the M180. That road project was delayed by the previous Labour Government. The first parliamentary question that I put to the Secretary of State for Transport when I was elected was whether he would extend the M180 to the ports of Immingham and Grimsby. Thanks to investment in the road infrastructure in and around south Humberside, we now have superb road transport facilities. That means that no heavy goods vehicles need cause any trouble or inconvenience to people in the small villages in south Humberside and south Yorkshire.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: rose—

Mr. Brown: I have been generous in giving way and shall give way to the hon. Gentleman with whom I had the honour to serve until recently on the Select Committee on Energy. However, we must make progress because many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Lofthouse: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that during a recent meeting of the Select Committee Malcolm Edwards, the marketing director of British Coal, made clear in answer to a question from me that the only real reason for the extension of the ports was the importation of coal? If the Bill will have no effect on our coal industry, why did not the hon. Gentleman and the promoters of the Bill accept British Coal's amendments?

Mr. Brown: That is not my interpretation of what happened in the Select Committee. British Coal has successfully negotiated future contracts with the electricity industry. The Bill's primary purpose is to ensure that the port industry can compete on equal terms with the best in the rest of Europe and the world. We are discussing a Bill that will facilitate exports and imports. Many companies in my constituency, such as Norsk Hydro and SCM Chemicals, which have to import dried bulk cargo, will be better able to import their raw materials and enabled to go about their manufacturing business at cheaper cost.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Brown: It is always a privilege to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this is the last time that I shall give way.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has moved the Third Reading of a private Bill. Both he and his colleagues have made great play of the fact that the Bill has nothing to do with the Government or the Conservative party. He told the House that the infrastructure in the area had been improved through Government action. He also said that there have been discussions and negotiations between two nationalised industries and one that is now privatised to ensure coal arrangements. That is another political decision.
The hon. Gentleman, as the surrogate Member for Johannesburg, has the cheek to tell us that he is putting forward a private Bill. The argument that we have sustained for a long time is that the Bill is part of the same political argument that he makes in relation to the infrastructure in his constituency. For that reason the Bill should not be a private measure. It should be brought forward by the Government as a political measure, because its net result will be that more coal will be imported. We already have a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion, and coal imports will add to that.

Mr. Brown: Associated British Ports is a major company in my constituency. It came to me and indicated its intentions and the tremendous benefits in terms of jobs, not only in the ports but in construction, that would accrue to my constituents. I volunteered to assist in piloting the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I shall be brief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, to all intents and purposes this is a Government Bill. It has Government support and is whipped by the Government—[Interruption.] One does not need three lines on a piece of paper to be able to say that a Bill is being whipped. We know very well that the Government have thrown their full weight behind the measure. The vote will show the number of Ministers and Cabinet Ministers who pass through the Division Lobby.
Since the Bill started its progress through the House, there have been some dramatic changes not only in the coal industry but in the electricity industry. We have also seen dramatic changes to our imports and our balance of payments, and all those changes have dramatically altered the balance of argument about the Bill.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that the Bill has nothing to do with the import of cheap coal, but that is nonsense. The investment in improving port facilities will result in an increase in imported coal. That will have an adverse effect because it will lead to job losses in the United Kingdom coal industry, increased coal prices, which will affect electricity prices, inflation, and an aggravation of the balance of payments deficit, both as a whole and in the fuel balance of trading. Coal will be imported from south America, Poland and South Africa. Initially, that coal will be cheaper than British coal but that will not last. Prior and McCloskey have carried out some work on this issue and their figures show that by 1995 imported coal will be dearer than British coal. By that time we will have got rid of about another 40,000 miners and it will not be possible to reverse the trend in indigenous coal.
We are in an exceedingly serious position. This nation has the gift of coal that will last for 200 or 300 years and it can be used particularly by the electricity industry. The areas hardest hit will be the north-east and not least Nottinghamshire. The Nottinghamshire field has some rich seams, and many pits there will be closed and miners thrown out of work. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes should listen to the arguments. He might see the matter as funny but we are discussing thousands of mining jobs.
We believe in the future of British industry, not least in mining. In the light of the increase in oil prices, the price of imported coal will go up and our coal will not be mined because of redundancies. On the "Today" programme this morning it was calculated that within the next few years 40,000 miners will go from an already depleted industry.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I regret that my right hon. Friend's comments appear to be falling on stony ground. Conservative Members, except perhaps for two, do not care what happens to the Nottinghamshire coalfield. They simply go through the motions in the Chamber in an attempt to ensure that they will be representing their constituencies after the next election. Will my right hon. Friend stress the serious effect that the Bill will have not only on mining but on the nation? It will also exploit the use of slave labour in the production of cheap coal in South Africa and Colombia.

Mr. Orme: I agree with every word my hon. Friend says. Although the coal to be imported is cheap at the moment, the rise in world prices and the increased price of oil mean that it will not be cheap in years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover referred to the balance of payments deficit. For the first 11 months of 1989, it stands at £19·3 billion, and will probably reach £20 billion when the December figure is known. Moreover, for the first time in our history there is a fuel trade deficit. That stands at an all-time high, and for 1989 is projected to be 18·5 million tonnes. Britain used to be self-sufficient in coal, but both deficits will increase if coal imports grow, putting further pressure on the economy.
We are talking about the future of mining, which is a crucial part of the United Kingdom's manufacturing output. The Bill spells the end of the industry as we know it.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Is it not a fact that if the Bill is enacted coal imports will increase to such an extent that our supplies will give us no security? We cannot decide subsequently to produce more coal because once a pit is closed it cannot be reopened. Coal production cannot operate simply according to supply and demand; there must be planned production. That is the difference between coal mining and other industries. Opposition Members will vote against the Bill tonight and I ask Conservative Members to think seriously on behalf of the nation before they vote tonight. If the Bill is enacted, we shall be at the mercy of the world market with coal being divided up among business men, and we may find that our industries cannot afford it.

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend. Even with drift mines we are talking of between eight and 10 years for a new mine to be developed. That is the sort of planning that is necessary. Pits in the Nottinghamshire and south Yorkshire areas are classic examples. There are profitable pits with plenty of coal, but even in the short term they will face closure because imports will knock them out. Then, when import prices rise, we will not be able to replace them. We shall be at the mercy of imports and import prices.

Mr. Hood: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that the high-production pits in Nottinghamshire produce 80 per cent. of steam coal—coal that can be burned only in power stations. My right hon. Friend will be aware, although few, if any, Conservative Members are, that the


consequences for the Nottinghamshire pits have been very much understated. They will be far greater than has been suggested.

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has personal knowledge of Nottinghamshire.
Our opposition to the Bill tonight is not a narrow, negative opposition; it is about the future of the industry and of our economy. We believe that the Bill is bad and should be defeated.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I have so far abstained on the Bill, but I intend to support it tonight. I recognise that the Bill has given cause for concern in the coal industry, and those who support it, particularly those who have changed their stance, as I have, should be prepared to meet those arguments head on.
The coal industry has been a protected industry for a long time. It has had no competition whatever from overseas and it has had precious little competition from the private sector. I now find that I have rather more coal being mined in my constituency through opencast mining than through deep mining, and I am interested to see just how efficient the private sector is and how competently it deals with the environmental problems—often far more competently these days than deep mining used to in constituencies such as mine. Opencast mining is still bitterly opposed by deep mining interests. I understand that that is because of competition, but they are wrong to do so.
The protection that we will still be giving the coal industry if Bills such as this are defeated is not in the interests of the industry. I am sure that it is not in the interests of consumers, particularly consumers of electricity, nor is it in the interests of Britain; or at least, not for much longer.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the hon. Lady understand that, in order to compete with coal coming in from South Africa or Colombia, we would have to reduce wages and all the other conditions in our mines to the same level as in those countries, and it is that that we are anxious to avoid?

Mrs. Currie: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall come to potential coal imports in a moment, but many of the arguments against coal imports are misplaced.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, not yet.
Let me explain why I have changed my mind. I have not done so under any pressure but because I have given some thought to the arguments. My first reason for changing my mind is that, as of 31 March this year, the Government have been immensely generous in writing off the coal industry's debts. The total bill for the British taxpayer will be about £5 billion, the biggest write-off that such an industry has ever seen. It wipes the slate clean.

Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Currie: No, not yet.
On 1 April this year, the industry will start with a completely clean slate. Not many corporations in Britain

can say that. That puts British Coal at a slight advantage when compared with many businesses, certainly with many privately funded businesses in my constituency.
Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) mentioned, British Coal has signed long-term contracts with the successors to the CEGB. Those substantial contracts will tide British Coal over any period of difficulty. They have been concluded in the interests of the coal industry.

Mr. Illsley: The hon. Lady referred to the writing off of the coal industry's debt, but the Coal Industry Bill does not say exactly how much of that debt will be wiped off As far as I am aware, throughout the Bill's Committee stage, there has been no reference to how much debt will be wiped off. Therefore, for the hon. Lady to say that, as from 1 April, British Coal will be starting with a clean slate is wrong. That will not be the case.
The hon. Lady should also bear in mind that, since 1980, British Coal has given £1·2 billion of that debt to the CEGB in the run-up to privatisation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members should confine their remarks to the Bill that is before the House and not to one that is in Committee upstairs.

Mrs. Currie: I endorse your point entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As someone who has an interest in the Bill, I want to know its real purpose. M y understanding is that the Bill's promoter gave a firm indication that the ports required the legislation to assist their development, not the importation of foreign coal. However, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made it clear that the Bill will facilitate coal imports. Her remarks cannot be interpreted in any other way. I seek clarification from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker., as to the real purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not denying the relevance of debate about the future development of the coal mining industry, but I stress that right hon. and hon. Members should not involve themselves too much in the detail of the Bill directly relating to the coal industry that is already in Committee.

Mr. Redmond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On previous occasions you have ruled that the measure before the House is not a hybrid Bill. However, the remarks made by the Bill's promoter and by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) imply that the Government have an interest in it and that the Bill has national implications. Even at this late stage, I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to rule that the measure is a hybrid Bill and should be withdrawn front consideration by the House this evening.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman repeats a point that he has made several times before. I reiterate that the Examiners have studied the Bill carefully and are satisfied that no hybridity is involved.

Mrs. Currie: In reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central, (Mr. Illsley), some of my briefing comes from Conservative Central Office. The hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to be aware that the figure of £5 billion was


just hinted at. That was clearly the figure some Ministers thought that the Government would have to fork out to settle British Coal's debts.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have just ruled that there is no hybridity involved in the Bill, because the Government have no interest in it. However, if the remark by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South that part of her brief came from Conservative Central Office is not a sign of Government involvement, I do not know what is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have nothing to add to my earlier ruling.

Mrs. Currie: If the Bill is passed, as I hope it will be, the ports will be a tremendous asset to the north-east. They may be used to import some coal, which is why Opposition Members oppose the measure.
I changed my mind about the Bill because the Government have already dealt very generously with the industry, which also has substantial long-term contracts in the provision of electricity. Its future is secure. British Coal's board has undertaken a major reconstruction of the industry over the past four years or so, and it is to be congratulated on having done so in the teeth of opposition from Labour and the National Union of Mineworkers. Any industry or business that can halve its work force in four and a half years and at the same time double its productivity should be capable of coping with any minor changes and challenges that a tiny amount of coal brought in through one port might produce.

Mr. Andy Stewart: What I have heard so far from my hon. Friend has appalled me. Given that she was a lady of courage and stood beside the working miners during the difficult period of 1984–85, does she not feel remorse or even a pang of conscience at sticking a knife into their back tonight?

Mrs. Currie: Clearly my hon. Friend has not kept up with developments in my constituency. In the first place, there are no longer any miners there. Secondly, we are about to welcome Europe's biggest inward investment with Toyota. Thirdly, the bulk of British Coal employees in my area now work for bodies involved in mining research, which will continue to serve the whole country so long as such research is needed.
Others serve in workshops, which will also continue to provide a service to the whole country. As and when the industry is privatised, as I firmly hope that it will be, those workshops will be able to provide a service to the engineering industry of the midlands, including the developing car industry there. That is what the workshops should do—not be tied to a limited, non-competitive pattern of contracts from one particular industry.
In reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), we should not worry too much about coal imports. Even if the port does handle coal, it will not be able to introduce so much into the country that it will damage our own industry. That apart, many countries that are currently exporting their coal will need it for their own purposes in future. Poland must be a prime example of that. As the economies of eastern Europe grow and they develop a capitalist approach to life, they will need to keep their coal to meet their own energy requirements.
The same is true of the developing economies of the far east, which will find themselves competing with us both for imports and exports. If Opposition Members will read the brief available in the Library, they will learn that there is not a huge collection of foreign countries waiting to send their coal to Britain. Most of them have their own markets, including their domestic markets.

Mr. Michael Welsh: If in the short term we allow more coal imports, as the Bill will do, and close our own pits, where shall we turn when those countries now exporting their coal to us decide that they need it for their own purposes? It does not take a great intellect to appreciate that, in those circumstances, we shall have to pay whatever price is demanded. In a country that has no energy of its own, it is very hard to get off your knees—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not keep dragging me into his argument.

Mrs. Currie: I have already explained that the "short term" of which the hon. Gentleman speaks cannot begin for several years. The coal industry's contracts with the electricity generating industry have already been signed and will be adhered to.

Mr. Welsh: But they cover only a three-year period.

Mrs. Currie: In my constituency, three years is a very long time. By then, I hope that my majority will have increased again.
If there were no proposals to write off the coal industry's debt to leave it struggling, because although the pits were profitable, the industry could not make money because of interest charges if no long-term contracts were already in existence with the electricity generating industry, and if there was no recent history of strong, solid management in the coal industry, then I would not support the Bill.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Has she considered this issue in the time frame of the next two or three years? Because of the hard work that she did to secure the Toyota factory, which I hope will be operating by that time, her constituency will contribute considerably to Britain's manufacturing export effort. Has my hon. Friend considered that we will need additional port facilities to export the products that her constituents will be at the forefront of making in the years to come?

Mrs. Currie: I could not have put it better myself. That is absolutely right.
My hon. Friend may also be aware that Toyota has also just signed a £50 million contract with PowerGen. That is a competitive contract and Toyota would not have signed it if it did not think there was the potential for coal in Britain to stay closer to world prices. That has to be a good thing for my constituents.
In my view, there are advantages to some competition—not much, just a modicum. More of my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), would benefit if we had a competitive price for British coal.
The Bill will benefit my constituents in two ways, and that is why I am prepared to vote for it. I think that we are likely to have cheaper electricity in the long run and, as Britain has high prices for fuel, it seems wise to aim to do our bit for inflation by getting down fuel prices, if possible.
I have two major coal-fired power stations in my constituency, and I hope they will continue to operate. They take coal from the Nottinghamshire coalfield. If coal is sold at a slightly lower price, the future of those power stations is more likely to be guaranteed, and they will be more able to compete. If the coal is high-priced, the electricity generators would want to take power from gas and oil, and that is already beginning to happen. I feel confident that coal will continue to come into the power stations down the merry-go-round from Nottinghamshire and the other coalfields.
One change that convinces me of the merits of the Bill is that I was involved in negotiating the second largest set of contracts that the British Coal Board has ever had—those with the National Health Service. Only when there was a hint that the Yorkshire health authority might consider importing coal if it did not get a decent price for coal did British Coal seem interested in settling a contract. The NHS got a better deal than it would have done if there had been no competition.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), but I am convinced that a vote for the Bill tonight will be in the interests of their constituents and mine.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, which is short. I hope that speeches will be brief.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: One of the most significant events in this debate is the speech that we have just heard—not that it was such a distinguished speech, but it shows a break in the ranks of Conservative Members representing constituencies in Nottinghamshire. That will cause a great deal of embarrassment to the parliamentary colleagues of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South says that she has been converted. I have already taken part in many debates on the Bill, as the sponsor of the Bill has mentioned. My hon. Friends and I have never deviated from our view of the Bill. One of my hon. Friends described it as a hybrid Bill, but I call it a bastard Bill.
Many things have happened since the Bill was introduced. The energy situation now is unrecognisable compared with that when the Bill was introduced. Hon. Members are entitled to speak as they believe in the House and I have no objection to that, but when the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) introduced his contribution to the Third Reading debate, he said that the Bill had been before a private Bill Committee. I do not object to retelling its history, but I object to rewriting it, as the hon. Member did when he told us how the Bill came before that Committee.
As the hon. Gentleman knows well, no amendments were tabled in Committee. The significant fact that emerged was that the private Bill Committee did something that no other Committee has done. It said that it was concerned about the energy implications of the Bill, and—contrary to what the hon. Gentleman told the House—it identified that there would be coal imports. The private Bill Committee report said that the promoters were

not arguing that there would be no coal imports, as they gave in evidence a figure of 2·5 million tonnes by 1993. The Committee went on to challenge that figure, and said that the level of imports,
if the Bill receives Royal Assent, will be determined by a range of commercial factors at present unknowable. We conclude that it is not possible at this stage to predict with any degree of assurance the amount of foreign coal that may be imported, although we concede that this may be considerably more than the promoters of the bill were prepared to accept in giving evidence.
I think that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes should have been more candid and should have told the House what the Committee, on which he served, decided in relation to this issue.

Mr. Michael Brown: This is a private Bill, and I was debarred from serving on the private Bill Committee. The hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) served on the Committee. I sat in the Gallery for most of its proceedings, and I can advise the hon. Member for Midlothian that I heard many amendments tabled by the National Union of Mineworkers, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and the British Coal hoard. I believe that he, the hon. Member for Bradford, North and the three other hon. Members had many amendments to consider, but the Bill was reported to the House by that Committee without amendment.

Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I recall that he was not allowed to serve on the Committee. However, that does not minimise the thrust of my argument—that when the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes introduced the Bill, he said that it would involve no coal imports. The hon. Gentleman says that he sat in the Committee Room while the Bill was being considered. If so, he should have at least done the House the courtesy of reading the deliberations of the Committee.
I am not quoting my view. I am quoting the opinions of the Committee. I could go on, but I do not want to because this subject was covered in the debate.
During the debate the figure for coal imports was put much higher—between 10 and 15 million tonnes. It is dishonest for the sponsors of the Bill to suggest that no coal imports are involved and, to some extent, they are deceiving the House. I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes will accept that.

Mr. Redmond: I understood that there would be coal imports. If there were to be no coal imports, Associated British Ports could have accepted what the coal board was saying about its amendment to the Bill. But it refused to accept that amendment, which clearly shows that one of the major functions of the Bill is the importation of coal.

Mr. Eadie: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I should like now to deal with the second significant aspect. It was the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes who introduced the subject of the private Bill Committee. I see that its Chairman is present; no doubt he will confirm what I am saying. I do not know whether he intends to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that he will dispute my claim, as it is already on the record. The Committee was concerned about the energy implications of the Bill, and took a significant step: it reported, in a special subsection or subparagraph, that the Government should consider those implications. I am


speaking, as it were, in shorthand, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not quote me verbatim, but I think that I am conveying the sense adequately.
The implications of the Bill are, of course, something that the whole House should consider. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said earlier that, if the Bill contained everything that its sponsor claimed, it should have been introduced by the Government. The miners' parliamentary group—I make no apology for the fact that I am its secretary—tried its best to establish the Government's view. We had a meeting with the then Secretary of State for Energy and the then Leader of the House—who, incidentally, is now Secretary of State for Energy—and asked for written details of the Bill's implications for the coal industry and the nation's energy.
We received our reply in July, by which time it was out of date. Momentous changes had taken place in the industry. A leaked private document showed that—Coal Industry Bill or no Coal Industry Bill—the industry was due for a chop, at a cost of 30,000 jobs. Even more significant, the Government had decided to abandon the thermo-nuclear power programme, or at least cut it, perhaps building just one more pressurised water reactor. That represented a dramatic change in energy policy.
There was a third factor. I hope that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is listening. Members of the energy studies group had the privilege of listening to the chief executive of British Gas, telling them that within 10 years he hoped that there would be between 3 and 10 GW of electricity per station. As a GW represents 1,000 MW, they mean five new power stations.

Mrs. Currie: With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. High-priced coal generates competition from other fuels, and I would like a competitive British coal industry. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to ensure competitive coal prices is to allow not enormous levels of imports, but enough to generate competitive pricing?

Mr. Eadie: Let me say, in all kindness to the hon. Lady —who is talking about a subject that she neither understands nor has studied—that it is always a great mistake for hon. Members to come into the Chamber and discuss matters about which they know nothing. I do not think that the hon. Lady listened to my remarks about the significance of the contraction in the thermo-nuclear power industry. Is she aware that the coal industry at present subsidises the nuclear industry? In cost terms, nuclear power was a fraud, as it is much more expensive than coal. In view of the millions of pounds that are spent on nuclear power, let us not hear any lectures about the cost of coal.
There is also an environmental aspect—we are always hearing how environmentally conscious the hon. Lady is. It is well known that foreign coal has a very high sulphur content; the sulphur content of British coal is much smaller, and my part of the world probably has the lowest levels of all. The coal that we import will pollute the environment.
The more that the Bill has been debated in the House, the more inconsistencies have been revealed. We are meeting the chairman of British Coal on Tuesday, and we

know that a further contraction of the industry will be announced, involving some pits in the Nottinghamshire area. The coal industry is under threat. When a nation is confronted with a balance-of-payments problem such as ours, it is sheer lunacy to start talking about importing foreign coal. The Bill, however, is designed to import coal, and it will harm not only the coal industry but the nation. The House should vote it down tonight.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I see that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak, and I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments. Hon. Members always find it helpful to know the Government's attitude, however, and I have pleasure in being able to tell them what it is. Members have had the opportunity to give their views in debates on earlier stages, but tonight we are deciding whether to give the Bill its Third Reading.
Having considered the contents of this private Bill, the Government have no objections in principle to its proposals—the Departments of Energy and Transport do not consider that there are any outstanding problems to be resolved. The Department of Transport's basic policy is that Associated British Ports, or any other port authority, should be free to compete on price and service, and our view is that if ABP thinks that it can make a commercial success of its proposed new facilities at Kings Lynn and South Killingholme, there can be no Government policy objection. It is obviously for ABP to persuade Parliament that the powers that it seeks are justified.

Mr. Redmond: I find it strange that the Minister should say that the Government have no policy view on the Bill, as we were told, in a room in this building, that they intended to ensure that it was passed. If that is not their intention, why should a Minister say what this Minister has said?

Mr. Portillo: I am describing the Government's present attitude, which is that this is a private Bill on which we are neutral. In my closing remarks I shall explain that, in the circumstances, we believe that it should be allowed to proceed—the circumstances being that it has passed through its various stages and has been considered by the private Bill Committee which has decided that it should be allowed to proceed unamended. The Committee, however, made that subject to a binding undertaking from the promoters, which they have given.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Surely the Minister is not talking about the reality when he talks of "allowing the Bill to proceed". He knows as well as anyone here that the Government support the Bill. Why does he not say so?

Mr. Portillo: No. The Government's attitude is that a private Bill on which they stand neutral should be allowed to proceed for further consideration in the House. The Bill must then move to another place, where it will be entirely for their Lordships to decide whether it should be amended or should not be allowed to proceed further. All that the Government are saying is that, as the Bill has emerged from the private Bill Committee unamended, it is proposed that we allow it to end its parliamentary progress in another place.

Dr. Michael Clark: My hon. Friend mentioned that, having imposed two conditions, the private Bill Committee voted that the Bill should proceed to its next stage. He referred to one binding condition—that the promoters should publicise by placing in the House of Commons Library the amount of coal imported quarterly through the facility, if and when it is constructed. Will my hon. Friend refer to the other condition—the special report that brought to the Government's attention the fact that if coal were to be imported in the massive quantities suggested by some petitioners it could have a seriously adverse effect on the British coal industry? The Committee decided, with my casting vote, that it was important to have this port facility for other reasons—for grain, iron ore, finished iron products and motor car exports—but that the Government ought to take note of the special report and should be aware of the dangers of massive coal imports. Will my hon. Friend please tell us whether note has been taken of the special report? The Committee has received no notification from the Government as to whether it has been received or read.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes two points. First, ports have many uses. They can be used for both imports and exports. It is not clear what effect the Bill would have on any aspect of Government policy. My hon. Friend also referred to the special report that he wishes the Government to consider. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will wish to bear it closely in mind.

Mr. Lofthouse: The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) was the Chairman of the private Bill Committee. He is also Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Committee imposed two conditions. The Minister now tells us that the Government have given no assurances whatsoever about those conditions. The Bill should not, therefore, be given a Third Reading. The Committee does not wish it to proceed.

Mr. Portillo: I understand that the Committee sought a binding undertaking from the promoters and that that binding undertaking was forthcoming. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) said that the Committee also wished the Government to take account of its special report. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will certainly take account of it.

Mr. Hardy: The House considers legislation, not edicts and special reports. We should have been able to secure amendments to the Bill on Report. We were denied that opportunity, on account of the rules and practices of the House. I make no complaint about that. However, on Report we could have sought to embody in the Bill the very conditions that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) has properly drawn to our attention. It is no good the Government saying that they can be neutral on the Bill. By being neutral, an imperfect measure will leave this Chamber because our rules and practices deny us the opportunity to inject that degree of common sense of which the Government now appear to approve.

Mr. Portillo: It is not for the hon. Gentleman, or for me, to change the rules of Parliament. However, it is in the hands of Parliament to change the rules. If Parliament in its wisdom wishes to have Report stages for private Bills even when there have been no amendments, that would be

a matter for the appropriate Committee to consider. The Labour party's policy is to abolish the House of Lords. However, it is extraordinary that the Opposition are ignoring the fact that the Bill now passes to another place for further consideration. There are two opportunities to amend the Bill—during the Committee stage of the Bill in each of the two Houses. No amendment was made by the private Bill Committee in the House of Commons. For that reason, the Government believe that the Bill ought to be allowed to go to the other place, without any objection but without our active support. The House of Lords will have the opportunity to take into account that point and any other point that it may think is appropriate.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will the Minister clarify the Government's position? There has been one formal intervention, and also a sedentary comment, that this is de facto Government business and that it is whipped. My hon. Friend has sat in on all the debates. Will he confirm, from his knowledge, that five Parliamentary Private Secretaries have opposed the Bill consistently from the beginning and that four of them certainly intend to do so tonight? That would surely give the lie to Opposition comments that this is a Government-sponsored Bill.

Mr. Portillo: How right my hon. Friend is! This is not a Government-sponsored Bill. Of course there has been no whipping and there have been no disciplinary proceedings against any of my hon. Friends who voted against the Bill at any stage. Moreover, there will be no disciplinary proceedings. Conservative Members of Parliament will vote in different ways tonight, I have no doubt, and they will be perfectly free to do so.

Mr. Skinner: When he responded to his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) the Minister accepted that some unpaid Parliamentary Private Secretaries, not Government Ministers, had voted against the Bill. Is the hon. Gentleman able to name any Ministers of the Crown who have gone into the Lobby against the Bill? There have been several Divisions on the Bill during the last two years. It is inconceivable that this should be regarded as a free vote if, on every occasion, no paid Minister of the Crown joined a few of his hon. Friends in voting against the Bill. The truth is that, without fail, Ministers of the Crown have either .supported the Bill or abstained. Not one of them has joined the Opposition in voting against the Bill.

Mr. Portillo: I do not accept for a moment the hon. Gentleman's premise. If it is the case—I do not know whether it is—that Ministers have voted only in one way, that says nothing about whipping. There has been no whipping on the Bill. It may suggest that there are very few Ministers of the Crown from Nottinghamshire. I hope that that defect will be put right in due course.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend recall that on Second Reading only 51 Opposition Members bothered to vote? All the rest went home.

Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes the point in her own way, but she is leading me astray. As a Government Minister, I am giving the Government's view on this private Bill.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I may be able to help the Minister about what has been said by Conservative


Members about the Government's attitude to the Bill. I tabled a question for written answer on 30 October 1989. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy
what steps the Government are taking to protect the indigenous coal mining industry; and if he will make a statement on the special report".
In the last paragraph of his reply the Minister said:
It is not for Government to make a formal response to the special report but for the House to take it into account on Third Reading."—[Official Report, 30 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 21.]
If the Chairman of the private Bill Committee or any other Conservative Member is concerned about the contents of the special report, would it not be best to vote against the Bill being given a Third Reading?

Mr. Portillo: If my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford, who is Chairman of that Committee, is concerned about the matter, he may wish to say so during the debate and he may wish to ask hon. Members to bear that in mind. My hon. Friend asked me whether the Government would consider the special report. I am able to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has considered the report and will bear it in mind. The fact that he has not made a response is neither here nor there.
In the circumstances, I hope that the Bill will be allowed to proceed.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: Throughout the debates on the Bill a number of distinguished arguments have been advanced by Opposition Members. None of them has, in my view, been adequately answered by the promoters and sponsors. We would not have expected them to do so. We have raised important strategic and economic issues. At stake are major questions concerning the balance of payments, the trade and not least the energy industry of this country.
I remind the House that the private Bill Committee that considered the Bill concluded:
The decisions on energy and trade policy we have been invited to take are, in our opinion, national decisions which are the ultimate responsibility of the national Government.
That Government are represented here tonight. Despite the voting record of Ministers and of the Conservative party, the Government continue to maintain that they have no view on the Bill and that they are not organising support for it. They may say that they have no view, but clearly they have a considerable responsibility.
The proposal to build a dry dock terminal on the Humber cannot be examined as a local constituency issue as the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) seems to suggest. He told us tonight that the powers are sought simply to bring the port of Immingham into the 21st century and to provide vital revenues to port authorities. I wonder whether he agrees that the port authority would not contemplate such investment without calculating potential markets. He denied that coal imports were being sought and referred to the new contracts between the electricity generating industry and British Coal, but he knows that those contracts are of only three years' duration. Does he deny that if the measures in the Bill were to go ahead, in five years' time planned capacity would reach 10 million tonnes? If that were transmitted

into the displacement of British coal it would mean the closure of 13 collieries or necessitate the rundown of more than 20 pits.

Mr. Michael Brown: May I answer the hon. Lady's charge on behalf of the promoters of the Bill? If, as Opposition Members have suggested, the world price of coal tonight or tomorrow should exceed the price of British coal and not one single piece of coal were imported through the Immingham terminal when it is built, that terminal would still go ahead because the promoters have calculated that there is sufficient demand from a variety of other products. If not one piece of coal came through that terminal, it would still go ahead. The promoters have made that investment and that commitment.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I and my hon. Friends maintain that calculations will have been made based on potential markets for the import of coal at current foreseeable prices for the near future. We have already conceded that there may be an increase in world prices of coal for the future, but that in itself is an extremely damaging prospect.

Mr. Allen McKay: My hon. Friend is quite correct in that assumption. Will she take into account, in addition to the arguments by Opposition Members, the comments of the World Export Coal Organisation, which clearly stated that the amount of coal likely to be imported through Immingham will not affect world coal prices but that the collieries that will close because of those imports will no longer exist when they are needed in the 1990s?

Ms. Ruddock: I could not agree more and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating that point.
It is not for me to take up much of the debate as it is a private measure. However, I wish simply to put on record the view of the Opposition from the Front Bench. We have not been satisfied by the arguments of the sponsors and the supporters of the Bill and we maintain that it is the Government's responsibility. Had there been any honour among Ministers, they would have accepted that the national interest is at stake. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, the Bill will have a fundamental impact on our energy policy and on the balance of payments, which we all know are at an all-time and disastrous high. Most damaging of all, it will destroy the potential production of coal in Britain—coal that will be required in the 21st century and beyond. Any Government who are prepared to stand by and allow that industry to be placed in jeopardy—which they have already encouraged—are in my view not fit to be in government.
The security of our energy base for the next century and beyond is at stake tonight, and that is why I shall join my hon. Friends in the Lobby and vote against the Bill.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I join my hon. Friend the Minister in confirming that this is not a Goverment Bill. It is not a whipped Bill and I intend to vote against it, as I have done throughout. I have not been pressured by the Whips or leaned on by anyone in authority, not even by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who has been aware of my feelings on the subject, or my hon. Friends


representing Nottinghamshire constituencies, who have consistently voted against the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) said in an intervention, he is a Parliamentary Private Secretary and has been subject to no sanctions whatsoever for voting against it. Had it been a Government Bill with all the intensity behind it that Opposition Members assume, sanctions would have followed, certainly for Parliamentary Private Secretaries, but that was not the case.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of sanctions against Parliamentary Private Secretaries if they do the wrong thing. Will he confirm that one of the five Parliamentary Private Secretaries who voted against Second Reading was promptly promoted to Under-Secretary of State for Transport?

Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend tempts me, and I shall yield to that temptation by hoping that he will join us in the Lobby this evening. However, I know of no pressure upon him one way or the other.

Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Alexander: No, I must move on to the main part of my speech.
Hon. Members are aware that there has been tremendous reorganisation in the mining industry. I shall not weary the House by repeating the statistics, as they are well known. If we were to pass the Bill, all the courage, heartache and sheer hard grind involved in turning around a very difficult industry would be put totally at risk, because it would encourage cheap imports. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is aware of that.
If cheap coal were to be imported, the power stations most affected would be West Burton, Cottam, Thorpe Marsh and High Marnham, one of which is in my constituency. They are nearest, so it would be cheapest for them to receive imported coal with which to carry on their generating activities. Those stations are taking 16 million tonnes of British coal, 11 million tonnes from Nottinghamshire and the midlands and 5 million tonnes from Yorkshire. Last year, 40 per cent. of all Nottinghamshire's coal sales went to those four power stations. The dependence of the Nottinghamshire pits on those markets cannot be exaggerated.
British Coal has estimated that 10 million tonnes of imported coal would cause substantial further closures of pits in Britain. Those would not be worn-out or near-marginal pits: productive pits would be closed because their market had gone. Their closure would also mean that the orderly restructuring of the mining industry, which I described earlier, would have to be abandoned. It would dangerously harm the ability to guarantee further long-term contracts for the electricity supply industry and would bring likely but unpredictable and high price hikes in electricity.
If we, by Act of Parliament, decide to cripple our coal industry, it will surely follow that we shall be at the mercy of overseas suppliers, who will be able to increase the price of their coal to this country. They alone will be this country's suppliers. Those overseas supplies are already extremely volatile. The electricity supply industry would hesitate if it believed that it would have to rely on them.

Dr. Michael Clark: Will my hon. Friend concede that he is making a strong argument against the importation of foreign coal rather than against the provision of additional port facilities for this country?

Mr. Alexander: I am certainly saying that to rely on foreign coal would be short-sighted.
The coal industry in the United States has been hit by a long-running miners' strike. Australia has a good market for its coal in Pacific countries, but it is experiencing labour disputes. As South Africa comes out of isolation, it will surely sell to less-developed African countries. That leaves China, Russia and Poland. China will probably be a net importer of coal, and as Russia and Poland develop, they will have less and less to export. Yet, in the short term, the Bill will destroy our productive pits, and in the long term it will make us dependent on countries whose unreliability I have just enunciated.
The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) said that, once a pit closes, it stays closed. A coal mine cannot be mothballed and be expected to be of any use within a few years if the international supply position changes.
I say to my hon. Friends who are thinking of voting for the Bill that it is not a protectionist measure. British Coal will have completed its restructuring by 1995. In view of the trauma which it, miners and their families have gone through to enable it to be able to achieve its aims by 1995, we should not have these port facilities until that time. By then, more long-term contracts for the electricity supply industry will have been settled, international prices and supplies will have settled to long-term levels and we will be well aware of the international position.
If the Bill were asking us to close a port to protect an industry, I would have nothing to do with it—this answers my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) —yet arbitrarily and deliberately to create facilities that will strike at the heart of one of our indigenous industries would be a wicked thing to do. We owe a great debt to the coal miner in this country, particularly over the past 10 years, but we owe an even greater debt to the coal miner in Nottinghamshire. For those reasons, I shall continue strongly to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I was brought up in nonconformity. We always rejoiced when sinners repented. I am therefore delighted to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander). The nonconformist welcomed the reformed sinner and said, "Do not sin again," but unfortunately the hon. Member for Newark and his hon. Friends, who happily will join us in the Lobby tonight, will in future vote with the Government, whose position logically they perceive as completely inappropriate to the British economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) spelt out the economic realities. We are building a dependence on imported energy at a time when our balance of payments is in an appalling position. Conservative Members cannot dispute that we have the highest balance of payments in the civilised world. However, we are seeing a determined attempt to compound that difficulty. Economically, the Bill represents a profound danger, which was perceived in the opinions which the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr.


Clark) offered the House. As I said to the Minister, the House deals in legislation and not in opinion or documents.
I am glad that some Conservative Members will vote with us tonight, but I am sad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is not in her place, because she did my constituency a profound disservice a little while ago. When British Coal decided to reduce its scientific laboratories from two to one, it decided that the laboratory at Wath upon Dearne in my constituency, which has enormous unemployment, should close and move to Bretby in the constituency of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South where there are no pits at all.
I assumed that that step was taken by British Coal—it is noted for taking decisions that are not always intelligent —to ensure that the hon. Lady remained one of the few Conservatives who supported the industry. I thought that it was providing a sweetener for her because her eggs had turned sour. Obviously, the moment that British Coal decided to locate the laboratory there, she decided that she would not remain one of the pro-coal minority on the Conservative Benches. She can now be attacking, offensive and damaging to the industry. She was most ungracious in her speech, with her new attitude to the coal industry. Hon. Members who have spoken in coal debates over a long time know that before she got egg on her face she was a consistent supporter of the industry that she now spurns.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) spoke about £30 million of investment in the new port, but how many scores of millions, if not billions, of pounds of investment in coal mines over the past 20 years under successive Administrations since the "Plan for Coal" will simply be wiped out by the Bill? Pits will close on which millions of pounds have been spent in the past 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) and I were talking yesterday about huge investment by British Coal in a plant at the side of the M1 motorway at Woolley, which every hon. Member will have seen. Some £40 million or £50 million has been invested—more than the cost of the port—yet as a result of the Bill that will almost certainly become what my hon. Friend described as a white elephant. The Bill will wipe out recent and substantial investment which dwarfs the investment proposed for the port.
Every hon. Member perceives the inevitable contraction of the industry, no matter what camouflage they attempt. The Bill will destroy a large part of the remaining home base of our important engineering and technological industry. The whole mining engineering industry will be affected. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for drawing my attention to another piece of evidence of the Government's interest in the Bill.
The Government have been telling us for months that they are not in the slightest interested in it. Now in comes no other than the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), to consult the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes, the sponsor of the Bill. No doubt the right hon. Lady will want to know the score and will be worried about the powerful arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Newark and others who share our detestation of the measure. I hope that when the

hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale leaves the Chamber he will tell his mistress, "Don't be on the losing side tonight. Stay in No. 10; then we shall not be associated with defeat." Defeat should certainly be the fate of this measure.
My final point—I do not think that my voice will hold out much longer—is this. On Monday I was with a group of people visiting Wath upon Dearne in my constituency to consider a serious problem that we face. I pointed to the east, where as far as I could see there was dereliction. I pointed to the west, and as far as we could see there was dereliction. There were hundreds of acres of land with closed marshalling yards, coking plants and science laboratories, and pit after pit had been closed in the past three or four years. Those hundreds of acres of dereliction and despoliation present my community and this country with enormous problems.
It is difficult to secure investment in such areas when the interest rate in the marketplace is 16 or 17 per cent. That is one of the problems that we face in Britain. It is not certain that we should have the industrial muscle to take advantage of the port facilities proposed in the Bill, because of the effect of current economic policies on investment.
As far as I could see to the east and to the west and in the middle of the Dearne valley, there was dereliction, despoliation and need. For a Government or a party—we had better say party in this context—deliberately to support a Bill which will cause those intense and extensive difficulties to be repeated on a wider scale in other areas would be a criminal act.
I am glad that there are a few repentant sinners on the Conservative Benches. I only hope that there will be enough of us in the Lobby with common sense to make sure that the Bill is defeated.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Before I begin the main part of my speech, may I refer to a comment made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) at the beginning of his speech. He almost flippantly suggested that coal imports have nothing to do with the Bill. It is clear to me that the purpose of the Bill is to provide a facility to allow large ships to come into Immingham, where now only small ships can enter, with coal from Rotterdam. It is obvious from the proceedings of the private Bill Committee that the main issue discussed there was the effect on the coal industry. Almost everything else seemed to be put to one side.
Like many other hon. Members, I decided to re-examine all the documentation and records available to me for the debate this evening. Since the Bill was first presented in the House two years and two months ago —that is a historic length of time—until tonight's debate, it has had a stormy passage. Originally, the Bill seemed to be marginally contentious, but it has caused justifiable interest and opposition.
The delays in processing the Bill have in many ways been fortunate. If it had received its Third Reading in May 1989, as originally intended, world events in the past six months would not have influenced opinion. I believe that world events should influence opinion on this issue.
I congratulate the Committee on its deliberations. It is evident from its wish to produce a special report and present it to the House that the proposal to use the port


facility for coal imports was of the greatest concern to it. It brought the attention of the House and of the Government to what it believed would be the potential disastrous effects of large-scale coal imports. That is precisely the reason why Associated British Ports brought the Bill before the House.
I found some aspects of the Committee's report particularly interesting, especially the reference in paragraph 20 to the petitioners' assessment of the amount of coal likely to be imported. That assessment could be correct, depending on the state of the international market. I also agree with the Committee's view that 15 collieries and 15,000 jobs will probably be lost.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) is not here. She said that her constituency has workshops on an experimental base only. I should like to tell her that, if the jobs in the mining industry go, so will the workshops. I have experience of that in my constituency, and it has happened in many other mining areas.
Vast areas of coal will be permanently sterilised. That will have an effect on local communities. The report suggests that the knock-on effect will be felt only in Nottinghamshire, south Yorkshire and Derbyshire. My view is slightly different. I believe that the effect will be far more widespread. If British Coal considers closing more pits in the face of competition from imported coal, it is probable that the least economic pits—despite their potential and coal reserves—will be the first to go. That may mean that collieries in other parts of Britain—the north-east and Wales—will close. The issue is of concern to all hon. Members with coal mining interests in their constituencies.
The Committee also commented—it is printed in heavy type in its report:
In our view, it is the Government's duty to take whatever steps are necessary, in the overall national interest, to protect the indigenous coal mining industry.
We should all agree with that view. I commend the Committee for its wisdom in making that observation. It foresaw—deliberately, or by accident—that world events in the period after it produced the report would change the whole perspective of energy production and export. Many of the major countries which export coal to Britain are going through traumatic political and economic changes which could seriously affect their ability to supply coal to Britain. The potential loss of domestic production, which is difficult if not impossible to recover, could significantly influence our economy.
International sources of coal imports, such as China, Russia, Poland and South Africa, are suspect in terms both of heavily subsidised coal production and of reliability. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Newark remark on that. I had the opportunity to visit China in May and June last year during the student demonstrations. I was there as a member of the Western European Union defence committee. We witnessed some of the activities in Peking, Shanghai and Canton—demonstrations and other activities—and the deteriorating relationship between the Chinese Government and the demonstrators. In the end, the Government used violent and horrific means to quell further demonstrations.
I saw something there which I am sure will continue well into the future. Some time in the near future, the issue of democracy in China will be raised again and a long

period of instability will ensue. China is a source of imported coal to Britain, and in my view it will be a very unreliable supplier.
We are all aware of the welcome changes taking place in Russia, but recent events point to domestic problems, one of which involves Russian miners. That instability will affect that country's ability to provide reliable supplies. Russia is another country with the potential to export coal which will not be in a position to do so for many years to come.
Poland has also moved on politically. Polish miners have been in the forefront of change. They seek a better quality of life. The price of that could be higher coal prices as well as unstable exports. Although I was pleased to learn that the Government are offering assistance to the new Polish regime, I hope that that will not take the form of support for Polish coal subsidies.
Perhaps I am an optimist for suggesting that significant changes are in the offing in South Africa—I hope without much more blood being spilt. Perhaps the hidden subsidies of low pay and low safety levels will be removed from South African mines. If there is no real attempt to reform apartheid, however, stronger sanctions should be imposed, especially on coal imports. I expect that the next Labour Government will apply those sanctions as soon as they come to office.
I shall not support the Bill, because I believe that we need a strong indigenous coal industry, which should be expanded. With positive marketing attitudes we could tonight be discussing coal exports rather than coal imports.

Mr. Kevin Barron: It is important to draw attention to our balance of payments and its effect on energy source imports. Many hon. Members will be familiar with the circumstances of the past 20 years. They will recall the 1970s when the cost of oil, imported into this country for electricity generation, increased.
In the 1970s, however, we began to see a gradual improvement in our energy needs deficit as North sea oil came on stream. In 1981 we moved into surplus for the first time in many years. That surplus peaked in 1983 at some 29·3 million tonnes of energy. In 1988, however, the surplus stood at just 9 million tonnes. Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) produced figures for the first 10 months of 1989 which showed that the fuel trade deficit was some 15·4 million tonnes and gave a projected deficit for the year of about 18·5 million tonnes. That deficit is incredible when one considers our natural energy assets—we have many riches in terms of coal, oil and gas. The fact that we have moved into a deficit in our energy supplies in such a short time, given the expansion of those fuel industries, is a sign of a badly run Government energy policy.
At 1985 prices, the value of our surplus in 1986 was £6·4 billion. That was a great benefit to the British economy, but in the first 10 months of 1989 the sum had been reduced to just £76 million. We should also remember that, at the same time, it cost us £222 million to buy French electricity. In money terms, we are approaching a deficit in our energy supplies, yet we are such an energy-rich country.
After many years of argument we shall shortly vote on the Bill which, if passed, will take a major tranche from


our energy industries. The country will head towards a larger energy supply deficit despite our natural resources. Many countries would love to possess just a small percentage of our energy reserves.
It is obvious that the Bill has been driven through the House and through Committee with scant regard for our national interest. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) once again said that the Bill was not necessarily about coal imports. He also spoke of the new contract that has been settled between British Coal and the new electricity generators. Every hon. Member should know that that contract is an interim one for the next three years only and that it includes the 10 million tonne loss that British Coal incurred on the market last year. That contract is ideal as it will nicely bridge the gap between now and the building of the port terminal. The contract that will follow will no doubt mark a further major reduction in the demand for British coal.

Mr. Redmond: If the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) said that he accepted that no coal should be imported through the new proposed port facility, I am sure that that assurance would assist my hon. Friends to support the Bill. He could give that assurance now if he so desired.

Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend will know as well as I do that British Coal tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee with that precise purpose. It wanted an assurance that, for a short time only, no coal would be imported and it sought that amendment to protect the coal industry. The amendment was rejected.

Mr. Michael Brown: Let me respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). It is not for me to decide whether coal is imported; it is for customers to decide whether they want to buy British coal. It is for the users of the port, exporters or importers, to decide upon that given the market conditions.

Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman is not always consistent, and that intervention suggests that he has shifted his position a little. A few years ago I recall him saying that the Bill had nothing to do with coal imports and that the terminal would be used for purposes other than for importing coal.

Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend was right to say that the contract between British Coal and the new electricity generators is an interim one. It is also important to consider the fixed-term nature of that contract. There will be no price increase in the cost of that coal for the next three years. If inflation continues at its present rate or increases, as it is likely to do under this Government, the contract will represent a net loss and a net price reduction to British Coal.

Mr. Barron: I do not know the exact details of the contract, but it has been mooted in the press—normally it gets to know about such matters well before Parliament —that that is likely to be the case. In the next three years, as in the past three years, further reductions in the price of British coal are likely. It is a great pity that, in the past three years, we have not seen commensurate reductions in the price of electricity. The cost of electricity increased so

that the industry could be floated without debt. That has been achieved at a great cost to the electricity consumer, industrial and domestic.
No one will disagree when I say that the natural catchment area for the new port will be the Aire valley, the lower Trent valley and the power stations that they contain. Those power stations are largely served from collieries in the Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire coalfields. There are six specific power stations in that area—Drax, Ferrybridge, Eggborough, Thorpe Marsh, West Burton and Cottam. In 1987–88 those six power stations took some 34 million tonnes of British Coal's output—nearly half the total of British Coal's sales to the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is obvious that there is a strategic significance about a port on the Humber rather than in any other area.
All the power stations in that area are supplied by collieries of the north-east, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire. If the port is developed and is used to import coal it will have its greatest effect on the power station at West Burton. In 1987–88 that station drew 4 million tonnes of coal from the Nottinghamshire coalfields. It is also worth considering the effect on Cottam power station, in Nottinghamshire. On 6 January an article appeared in the Financial Times by Maurice Samuelson, who knows a great deal about the generation of electricity from British coal supplies. He described what is already happening in the catchment area and made some specific reference to Cottam when he said:
Some 40,000 tonnes of Australian coal were tried out last week at the Trent Valley's Cottam power station, owned by the PowerGen division of the Central Electricity Generating Board. Colombian coal has also been tested there.
The article continues:
Like similar trials carried out by the bigger National Power company, the aim is to prove the burning characteristics of different coals
We all know that this is precisely what is behind the proposals that have been in front of us since May 1988. There can be no doubt that the 10 million tonnes of imported coal coming into the catchment area will have a major regional impact, putting at risk almost a third of the British coal supplies to those major power stations. Such a large reduction in the market would inevitably result in substantial closure of deep mine capacity. It would be impossible to rearrange the overall market for coal to avoid the greatest number of closures taking place in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, with Nottingham probably suffering the most. It is impossible to rearrange our internal market to stop that happening.
The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who has sat throughout this debate, chaired the Committee. That was contentious, not just because of the views expressed by Opposition Members but because many outside organisations petitioned against the Bill. We have commented on the special report that was published and I shall not repeat what was said at the time. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) reported on it only too well. When I tabled a parliamentary question it became clear that the Government were not going to take any measures to protect the indigenous coal industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) mentioned a letter from the Secretary of State for Energy in July that year, explaining in five-page detail that the Government would not take action to protect the


British coal industry. If any hon. Member wants to protect the British coal industry, he or she should join us in the Lobby to vote against the Bill's Third Reading.

Dr. Michael Clark: It is too early to say whether the Government will take measures to protect the coal industry. The idea of the special report to which the hon. Gentleman referred is to alert the Government to the dangers to the coal industry should the port facility—if and when built—be used heavily for coal importation. The Committee decided—granted, with my casting vote—that there was a need for a port facility, but there was a danger if that facility was used too much for coal and that the Government should be alerted to that danger. It is too early to say whether the Government will respond to that danger.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall read out the first sentence of the answer given to me by the Secretary of State for Energy on 30 October 1989. It states:
It is not this Government's policy to restrict imports of coal."—[Official Report, 30 October 1989; Vol. 159, col. 21.]
I shall give the latest news about what is likely to happen in the coal industry. During the past five years, while there has been a tremendous increase in productivity, of which all Members should be proud, the industry has suffered job losses of more than 100,000.
On 9 January the Financial Times reported that a source of "senior coal industry officials" warned of another 5,000 job losses each year for the next three years in the British coal industry. That is without any increase in imports through the port facility proposed tonight.
The effects are only too plain. The Government say that it is not a matter for them, but, as has been mentioned, Government Departments have to pay out special assistance, whether to the coal industry in restructuring grants for 70 per cent. of the cost of colliery closures or to other organisations in coalfield areas to pay for the damage that they have already suffered through past closures.

Mr. Eadie: Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), I should like to put on record a quote from the Secretary of State for Energy's letter. It states:
In responding to the Committee's concern, I must emphasise that it has never been the Government's policy to restrict the import of coal. Decisions on coal purchases, whether from indigenous or imported sources, must be for the commercial judgement of those concerned, on the basis of a willing buyer and willing seller. It would be quite wrong to compel coal users to purchase supplies from British Coal by denying them the right to buy from the supplier of their choice. But neither would we prevent coal users from buying as much coal as they would wish from British Coal.
That is a policy of "you go first and I'll go before you." Contrary to what the hon. Member for Rochford said, the Government have made up their mind.

Mr. Barron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. There should be no question in anybody's mind and there is no way that any hon. Member can avoid the issue if there is a Division on Third Reading later tonight.
Money has gone from other Government organisations to coalfields that have already suffered from closures and we should avoid any further British colliery closures being caused by the Bill. I have a news release dated 9 January 1990 from the Rural Development Commission. I did not know about that organisation until I received the press

release, but I have made inquiries and it is totally Government-funded to look after problems in rural areas. The Department of the Environment has given the commission permission to set up projects in the British coalfields. The press release states that this is
in the light of circumstances which have now arisen
in the midlands areas following pit closures. It continues:
Particular emphasis will be given to those areas where unemployment rates have remained high—East Derbyshire, North Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire.
The precise areas that are now suffering will suffer further if the Bill is enacted. It could not be clearer for anybody to see the implications of what will happen if the Bill is passed tonight.
Hon. Members should ensure that they do not sit wringing their hands about the position in the one or two pits that may be affected, but should consider the major effects that the Bill will have on the country and the coalfields, and vote with us against the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Andy Stewart: My views opposing the Bill have been well noted in previous debates, but I shall remind the House of the dangers of the Bill receiving a Third Reading tonight. The Associated British Ports proposals strike at the heart of Britain's coal industry arid coal-fired power generating capacity. The proposed port will most directly threaten the collieries of the east midlands and Nottinghamshire, which have already paid a heavy price for British Coal's rationalisation and restructuring programme. Such communities face the loss of more efficient and productive pits, many of which have received substantial investment in recent years. More than 25 collieries in the east midlands have been identified as at risk from the Humber port. Up to 10 will be displaced by between 4 million and 5 million tonnes of foreign coal, and at least 15 will be closed by a 10-million-tonne importation, putting 24,000 miners at risk.
Coalfield economies are highly dependent on the coal industry and a multiplier of two is a realistic assessment of the knock-on effect of the loss of one mining job—thus, every colliery job lost will lead to another lost in another sector. If 15 collieries closed, the total impact would be the loss of about 30,000 jobs.
The areas affected are those that already have very few job opportunities. For example, six of the 15 travel-to-work areas at risk lie in the botton 10 per cent. of travel-to-work areas, graded by long-term unemployment. The coalfield communities threatened by imports already face a range of economic, social and environmental handicaps. Employment structures have been dominated by coal and other basic industries, with a marked lack of the service sector engine of regeneration. Environmental quality is poor and land reclamation programmes will take decades to tackle the dereliction. If all the collieries at risk were to close, another 2,500 hectares would require reclamation—

Mr. Allan Rogers: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about the communities that will he most intimately involved—the midlands and Yorkshire —but I assure him that the port will affect coal mining communities right across the country, particularly in south Wales, where British Coal recently issued a circular to all households receiving concessionary coal, apologising for the fact that the company had to give them inferior


imported English coal instead of good Welsh house coal. British Coal suggested to the users, most of whom are elderly, that they should carry out certain practices to reduce the pollution from the low quality coal. The knock-on effects will be felt in other coalfields, too.

Mr. Stewart: I apologise for concentrating on my deep anxiety about my constituency of Sherwood, but the hon. Gentleman is correct about the knock-on effect penetrating Wales—

Mr. Barron: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the knock-on effect, why did he say nothing when the Blidworth colliery in his constituency recently closed?

Mr. Stewart: I do not wish to delay the House by going over what I said about the closure of that colliery, but I am quite prepared to give the hon. Gentleman all the records of what I said here and in the local press.
High import levels raise the prospect of greater road transport of coal. Nottinghamshire county council secured payments from the CEGB for damage to roads from the increase in road movements during the 1984–85 strike. The loss of pits removes an important source of revenue from central and local government, whatever types of rates and collection are used.
I contend that the dramatic improvement in the fortunes of British Coal, the massive investment by Government and the enormous changes already borne by the coalfield communities should not be squandered for the illusory benefits of foreign coal. Development of the Humber port will severely damage the economies and communities of areas that have fallen progressively further behind the wealthier regions of this country. For these reasons I shall oppose the Third Reading.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Like many other Opposition Members, I was born into a mining community and worked in mining all my life before coming to this place. I want to tell Conservative Members, especially those who represent Nottinghamshire, that although I understand that they are representing the interests of their constituents and opposing the threat to their livelihoods, I take great exception to the way in which the miners whom I have loved all my life have been deliberately deceived in the past.
After past debates on the Bill I was sick in the guts to read press reports that Nottinghamshire Conservative Members had accused the Opposition of not blocking the Bill. It was never reported that Conservative Members had told their constituents that the Conservative Government and their supporters were pushing the Bill through the House—a Bill that was going to close many Nottinghamshire pits. Miners are genuine, hard-working people and they are not to be deceived. Conservative Members representing Nottinghamshire know that as a result of tonight's vote the Bill will be passed and many pits in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere will close.
Since the early days of the Bill, all hon. Members have known that it has had Government support. On the first occasion we saw the Prime Minister leading her troops through the Lobby in the early hours. I and other hon.
Members have sat through every step of the debate on the Bill. Indeed, I sat through most of the debates in Committee.
I was aware of the unenviable task that faced the Chairman of the Committee and his Conservative colleagues. They were aware of the Government's support for the Bill, although I do not suggest that they were anything but impartial. Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark)—the Chairman of the Committee—will tell us whether, had he been aware that the Government were not going to take into consideration the wishes of the special report and give consideration to the effect on the mining communities, he would have given his casting vote. With greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not share his view that the Government still have time. Had the Government intended to make a statement arising from the special report, they would have done so tonight.

Dr. Michael Clark: The hon. Gentleman's last comment anticipated the answer that I had intended to give him. It was the answer I gave in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). I said that I still think that there is plenty of time for the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the coal industry should that facility be used heavily for the importation of coal. As for my voting intentions tonight, I shall be abstaining, following the pattern that is traditional for Chairmen of Committees. Indeed, I have abstained in all Divisions since I took the Chair, as have many other Committee Members.

Mr. Lofthouse: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could say what is meant by the phrase, "taking all the necessary steps to protect the mining communities." I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) say what he did because he has sat for years on the Energy Select Committee taking evidence on the coal report and the Electricity Bill. Without exception, he has heard much expert evidence from different chairmen of British Coal, different Secretaries of State for Energy and Lord Marshall, all of whom at some time conceded that the importation of coal means the running down of the mining industry.
Recently Malcolm Edwards, the marketing director of British Coal, told the Committee that the ports were to be extended for the major purpose of the importation of coal. That is a fact and the House knows it. If the mining industry is run down to 60 million tones—I am aware that under the new agreement it goes to 65 million tonnes in three years—and the press statement from British coal is true, the figures must be renegotiated in three years time and reduced to the magic figure of 60 million tonnes—the magic figure in that leaked document. It has never been denied. In five years time that will coincide with the extension of the ports, which will be ready to receive a further 5 million tonnes. That means the loss of 30,000 miners' jobs over and above the 27,000 that have been lost in the past five years.
In the mining communities in 1989 the average age of the workforce was 34, so without the attractive redundancy payments that miners over 50 have received hitherto those young men will be without any future prospects or even any weekly payments to cushion the blow. When we are told that the Government will take


steps in relation to the mining communities, what sort of steps are meant? In fact, no steps at all will be taken, and the hon. Member for Rochford knows that only too well.
It is clear to many people, certainly to my hon. Friends and 1, that what is proposed is all part of Government policy to run down the mining industry for purely dogmatic reasons. The Government are prepared to finance, at great expense to the taxpayer, 20 per cent. of nuclear supply to the electricity industry. Nobody knows the true cost of that. Recent figures put to the Select Committee on Energy by British Nuclear Fuels gave a decommissioning cost at present prices of £4·6 billion. Nobody can possibly know what the true cost will be if and when decommissioning becomes necessary in due course.
It is clear that the Government are prepared to spend a lot to run down the mining industry and extend the ports. Once we reach a demand level of 60 million tonnes, the coal industry will have been run down to such an extent that we shall not be able to meet the demand from the electricity industry. We will then be in the hands of foreign competitors. The additional demand for coal will have to be met by coal from abroad. For how long then will prices stay low?
It is deceitful to try to shelter behind a document stating that the Government will bear in mind the consequences of what is proposed in the mining industry. I have tried to explain those consequences. I urge hon. Members tonight to think carefully before taking a drastic decision. No Conservative Member can put his hand on his heart and say that further imports will not be necessary. It is clear that the proposed extension of the ports is designed to cater for the rapid rundown of the industry and of miners' jobs. Before that takes place, we have a moral obligation to the mining communities, many of which, like mine, have already been destroyed. It must be made clear what will be done for those communities before such a drastic step is taken.
I appeal to the hon. Member for Rochford and all Conservative Members to give serious consideration to the points that I have raised. They should join us in throwing out the Bill, at least until we have received firm assurances on behalf of the mining communities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: I was wondering why we had not seen in his place the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). Having heard the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and other Opposition Members, I now know why the hon. Member for Dagenham has not joined us. After all, he was the architect of the Labour party policy document about making the change and meeting the challenge or making the challenge and meeting the change. I cannot recall the precise title of that document. Whatever it was, it was a vacuous title of meaningless words.

Mr. Eadie: rose—

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman in order in treating the House with such frivolous disrepect when we are discussing an important Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the policy document to which I referred was frivolous, I agree with him. It is clear from what has transpired tonight that that cleverly packaged, well-written, meaningless policy document was designed to convince us that the Labour party had become consumer friendly, was in favour of competition, was against monopoly and wanted to get rid of the big bad old nationalised industries and their poor ways. But we find that, when Labour Members are scratched, they really want to go back to the good old days of anti-competition, import controls and restrictions on industry. They want to stop anybody importing and companies setting up businesses in this country, and they do not want new ports. They want a siege economy. The Opposition do not want industrial change. They want a nice cosy monopoly for the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Eadie: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had given way earlier. He was a bit rude. I had intended to assist him. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) wrote to me and apologised for not being able to be here to contribute to the debate. He is on unavoidable business elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept his apologies in good faith.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says that the hon. Member for Dagenham is unavoidably away. I am not surprised. If he were here he would see that all the revisionism of the last 12 months has been swept away in one night and that we are back to the good old-fashioned Labour party of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. If the hon. Member for Dagenham could see that he would be ashamed.

Mr. Flannery: You nasty man.

Mr. Bennett: The hon. Member, who is an expert in nastiness, accuses me of being nasty. I was merely pointing out for his edification that the underlying opposition to the Bill is opposition to competion. All the arguments used to oppose the Bill have been used by protectionists over the years to oppose any competition from abroad to British industry. It has not done British industry any good to be protected for 100 years. Competition has improved it and that has been brought about by market forces and by the customer having an alternative.
The Labour party wants to ensure that there is no alternative and that the customer is forced to use the product of an industry dominated by one trade union by which many Opposition Members are sponsored. That is the real reason for their fervent opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Illsley: When the hon. Gentleman talks about competition, is he referring to fair competition or to competition from countries such as Colombia with its drug industry and its child labour? Is he talking about South Africa? We have heard much in the debate about the situation in Colombia, South Africa and China. Has he considered the £1·2 billion that our coal industry has paid to the Central Electricity Generating Board since 1980? If price reductions had not been forced on British Coal over the past 10 years British Coal would be profitable even now. British Coal has paid out hundreds of millions of pounds in interest charges every year for the last decade to the Government, who paid over the money to the CEGB


to fatten it up before privatisation. We are not afraid of competition. British Coal can compete with some of the best, but it cannot compete with unfair competition.

Mr. Bennett: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not been following proceedings on the Coal Industry Bill. At the moment the Government are writing off a British Coal debt of between £4 billion and £5 billion. If the coal industry can claim to be supported by any Government, it is the present Government.
We are talking about the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) having the opportunity for a £30 million investment in the construction of a new port. Any hon. Member who had the opportunity for such investment in his constituency would be fighting for it. I congratulate my hon. Friend on speaking up for his constituency. I would be delighted to have a £30 million investment in my constituency. In my area we are considering an application by the CEGB to import coal to Milford Haven. I warmly support that because the customer comes first and the best way to improve the performance of British Coal and our mining industry is by the force of competition from abroad. We are faced with a balance of payments deficit, and it is wrong to try to get round it by setting up a siege economy and banning imports. We should improve the competitiveness of British industry so that it can compete with foreign imports and sell abroad.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend recall that when I was first elected to the House I represented a steel industry constituency and that Britain had a large, monopolistic supplier of steel? That industry had to compete with foreign steel and, as a result of having to face international competition, it is now one of the most successful industries in the world. It is profitable and private and serves the customer. That is an example for the coal industry that protectionism does no industry any good.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend is right. One has only to look at the shake-up in British Steel in the early 1980s following the disastrous strike at the beginning of the 1980s led by Mr. Bill Sirs. The British steel industry, having shed a large part of its work force, has become lean, competitive and able to compete abroad. For example, in Llanwern in south Wales, half the labour force now produces twice as much. That is the way forward for British Coal and for other old-fashioned nationalised industries that for too long have been protected.
I am concerned that tonight we have the same old-fashioned, anti-competitive, monopolistic views from the Labour party. It has not changed its real policies one jot. When we have a debate such as this, away goes the glitz and the fancy packaging and out comes the reality of the Labour party, wedded to the union block vote, to sponsorship and to the views of the masters who put Labour Members into this place. They are not interested in competition; they are interested only in protecting their own industry from the forces of competition which every other industry in Britain has to face.
It would be a sad day for Britain if the Bill were defeated tonight. It would mean that the customer did not come first. It would mean that the producer, the supplier,

came first, and that would not be right for the future of British industry. I hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading.

Mr. Pat Wall: I apologise for my voice. I am recovering from a chest infection.
The Bill has helped to give rise to misgivings about the private Bill procedure. It, above all private Bills, has created disquiet. Having been a member of the Committee that considered the Bill for five and a half months, I can well understand why.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not wear a wig, but you wear another hat as Chairman of Ways and Means, and you are conducting an inquiry into the private Bill procedure. Some months ago, you said that hon. Members who sat on private Bill Committees should be objective, fair and reasonable.
As I understand it, private Bills basically relate to planning permission, and that can be controversial. A major development in any area can affect the environment or the community, but it is not usually as politically sensitive as this Bill has been.
Four Back Benchers, three of them of only a few months' standing, have served on the Committee considering the Bill. It dealt with imports and exports during a period when our balance of payments deficit increased from £2 billion to £20 billion. It dealt with attempts to regenerate parts of south Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire that were savagely hit by the decline of industry in the past. The Bill is deeply political in a way that no private Bill should be.
The Bill has been intertwined with, and has taken the place of, Government legislation, by opening the door to the privatisation of the electricity industry. The sponsor says that it does not necessarily have anything to do with the future of the coal industry. The truth is that I and other hon. Members considered the Bill in Committee for five and a half months, in 26 double sessions. Advice on that Bill and on an adjacent Bill came from the well-known management consultants Coopers and Lybrand, who stated that, excluding scrap, iron ore and coal, the ports on the Humber could develop only to the tune of 8 per cent. more business between 1982 and 1987, which is less than 2 per cent. a year.
On the basis of the figures presented to the Committee by the promoters of the Bill, there is no justification for expenditure of £30·5 million at 1988 prices and of development costs of as much as £370 million at Immingham on the basis of the trade expected there, if coal is excluded. Steel and scrap is dealt with by British Steel using its own facilities, so the only product that could be imported is coal.
The Committee was wholly political, in that its two Conservative members voted for the Bill and against amendments, whereas two Labour members voted against the Bill—and having failed to defeat it, then voted for the amendments. We know full well about people who take the chair and use their vote. Bradford has had two Tory lord mayors who helped to pass all kinds of controversial measures over the past 18 months by using their casting vote.

Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be safe to draw the conclusion that the usual channels manipulated the selection of the Chairman of that


Committee? Labour and Conservative Members take it in turns to chair Committees, and by manipulating that convention it was possible to ensure that the Committee's Chairman would be a Conservative, who could influence the result of the voting.

Mr. Wall: My hon. Friend knows more about such procedures than I do, as a relatively new Member of this House. Two Bills were taken together, and the normal procedure would be for an Opposition Member to chair one of the Committees and for a Government Member to chair the other. If that had been done, the Opposition too would have had a casting vote.
The port in question cannot be for any purpose other than the importation of coal. In response to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), cars are not brought in on Panamax ships of 80,000 and 100,000 tonnes. How many chemical manufacturers on Humberside import chemicals in those quantities? Not one. It only makes sense to compete against the ports of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Antwerp—the ARA ports —if one can import a bulk cargo—and that can be nothing but coal.
I believe that the Committee's Tory members were embarrassed and under pressure, not from Conservative Members representing Nottinghamshire constituencies but from the Government, as a result of the hatred that resides in certain sections of the Tory party towards miners and mining communities. No such Committees would normally demand concessions from the promoter of a Bill unless even its Conservative Members were well aware that coal importation was the issue really at stake.
I am the grandson of a dock worker and was brought up politically on the Mersey docks, where I learned to debate and to fight politically among dockers and the dock industry. I have nothing against the development of Immingham or of any other port. However, only a madman would deliberately open a facility that cannot be economically viable or used sensibly except for importing coal. Even a little Englander does not deliberately set out to sabotage his own economy. The only cargo that can come in is coal and that coal can only replace coking coal that goes to the power stations in the Trent and Aire valleys, and that will mean the loss of miners' jobs.
I shall bring my contribution to an end with two quotations. Doctor Ben Fine told the private Bill Committee that the Bill would mean the deliberate importation of between 7 and 10 million tonnes of foreign coal into the Humber to ruin jobs. In Committee, we spoke of 15 pits and 15,000 jobs, and Doctor Fine said it could be 28 pits and 28,000 jobs. He went on to say:
According to our figures, the economic and social costs of pit closures will be made up of three components. First, lump sum redundancy payments will be of the order of between £191 million and £360 million, depending upon the extent and consequences of transfers. Second the annual recurrent direct costs due to dole payments and lost income tax, etc. will be in the region of £150 million and this cost will be supplemented through the multiplier effect on other jobs by a further £100 million.
Doctor Fine spoke of a total cost of more than £600 million, and of further devastation in areas such as south Yorkshire, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, upon an industry that has lost 97,000 jobs and has seen nearly 100 pits closed, with all the problems that that has already caused for those communities.
The Humber ports, without the deep anchorage, already import twice as much as they export.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: While my hon. Friend is talking about losses, can he not mention the profits that the newly privatised electricity industry will make? They want to build a new power station in my constituency. It was promised, and then turned down by the Government. The electricity industry will make enormous profits out of the cheap coal that it can bring in. The two tie together, and that is one of the factors that the Government are riot stating.

Mr. Wall: Even that profitability is illusory. The case has been well argued. If we close the pits, if we go to 60 pits and 60 million tonnes, or, as many hon. Members think may be possible, to 50 pits, 50,000 miners and 50 million tonnes of coal, then we will be at ransom to the world fuel and coal markets. There is no way out of that.
The truth of the matter is that we have to realise that there is a serious political point to the Bill, which should not have gone to a private Bill Committee. If I go on to such a Committee again, in similar circumstances, I shall learn to be a guerrilla. I have always been opposed to guerrilla tactics to sabotage a Committee, but it is wrong that the Government's policy should be carried out in this way.
There are many Opposition Members here who represent mining communities. Some Conservative Members represent mining communities in Nottinghamshire. Because of the procedures of the Bill, what remains of their most vital industry is threatened. Existing jobs are threatened with dislocation and so are existing services. They are also threatened with a reversal of all that they and their local authorities have done so painstakingly to try to repair the damage caused by previous redundancies. That is the situation that those hon. Members face.
Because of the political nature of the Bill, it was not amended, and hon. Members have not had the opportunity to amend it on behalf of their electors—the miners, the mining communities and local authorities—so that the Bill can meet their needs.

Mr. Alan Meale: I shall be voting against the Bill for quite a few reasons. First, the Government have abused the private Bill procedure in an attempt to ensure that what should be a Government Bill reaches the statute book. Secondly, in view of the United Kingdom's current port capacity there is no need for such a Bill. Thirdly, if the legislation is enacted, many British coal mines will close. Fourthly, the intention is to import cheap foreign coal, mainly—despite the protestations of Conservative Members—from such countries as South Africa and Colombia, not Australia and the like. I was interested to hear Conservative Members say that most of the imports would come from China. Following events in Tiananmen square, that strikes me as weak reasoning.
Fifthly, I share with other Labour Members a feeling of deep distrust about the Committee's decision to allow the Bill to get this far. Sixthly, I believe that it is mainly aimed at helping the Government's friends in the City, rather than being concerned with the nation's needs. Seventhly, it reflects the Government's historic hatred of the coal mining industry, and particularly of its work force: it is not really to do with the nation's mineral reserves.
Eighthly, the Bill is concerned with the destruction of many mining communities. Ninthly, the British taxpayer


will be paying for private profit through lost reserves and the money spent on unemployment and social security benefits, and other aid resources paid to the mining communities. Finally, the Bill's whole intention is to use energy resources for profiteering purposes, to the ultimate cost of the British public.
Let my explain my reasons in detail. First, most hon, Members who are now in the Chamber will agree that the use of the private Bill procedure rather than Government time is a disgrace to the House. Some hon. Members, especially those from Nottinghamshire, have again tried to use the weak excuse that this is not a Government-backed Bill. They, and any other hon. Member who is in any doubt, should recall the way in which, in the early hours of the morning, Ministers in their droves arrived to vote for it. There was evidence that whipping procedures were being used to bring more and more Conservative Members into the Aye Lobby—and, as has already been mentioned, on one occasion the Prime Minister herself turned up to vote for the Bill.
If any hon. Member needs further proof, he should look towards the Government Front Bench and observe the delicate piece of machinery called the Government Whip. He has sat there throughout the evening, cajoling his hon. Friends and reminding them that their time will come soon, when the Division Bell rings.
My second point relates to port capacity. The Government are pushing the Bill through for the sake of private profit, at a time when between 26 million and 30 million tonnes of port capacity is currently available and could adequately meet any extra needs. It is disgraceful that, through the use of the private Bill procedure, investment is being allowed that could lead to the loss of many coal mines in Britain. I pay tribute to the Coalfield Communities Campaign, which has done a great deal of work in this regard. It is supposed to be a cross-party organisation. A few Conservative Members, particularly those from Nottinghamshire, say that they support it. It says that 12 pits will close if the Bill is passed. It would also result in a threefold loss of coal-related jobs in the coal mining communities. If the Bill is passed, 40,000 to 42,000 people will lose their jobs in coal mining communities throughout the country, but particularly in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire.
Conservative Members used fringe arguments about coal imports. I have received a letter from an anti-apartheid organisation in South Africa which asks hon. Members to vote against the Bill. It would lead to the import of South African coal. Millions of tonnes of South African coal have already come here. It has been shipped to such places on the continent as Rotterdam and Ghent where it has been mixed with other coal and then brought to our shores, in particular to the north-east and Humberside. It is disgraceful that hon. Members, of whatever party, should allow that to happen. They should resist the importation of another 8 million to 10 million tonnes of cheap coal.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) has had many free trips to South Africa. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful"] He wants the Bill to be given a Third Reading. Other Conservative Members who are likely to vote for the Bill should recall that, apart from South African coal, Colombian coal, dug by children of

only eight years of age, is coming to this country. The Colombian Government manufacture drugs that are peddled around the world. Conservative Members ought to reflect on the fact that they will be supporting a Government who allow children to dig cheap coal in Colombian mines.
Opposition Members question whether the proceedings in Committee were correct. It is important to point out what happened on one occasion. During the debate a member of the Committee left his seat and spoke to a consultant. He gave him a message of support. In those circumstances, I question whether the Bill should have been allowed to proceed. It ought to have been referred to a new Committee for further consideration.
The Bill has to be placed alongside what the Government are trying to do to the coal mining and energy industries. They do not even try to hide the fact that they intend to privatise the supply of energy in order to provide a fast buck and a quick profit for their friends in the City.
To support the Bill would be an absolute disgrace and shame. I ask Conservative Members to vote with the Opposition and throw it out.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Opposition Members say that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill should not be given a Third Reading. Unfortunately, many Conservartive Members have not listened to the arguments. Had they done so, they would not give it a Third Reading.
The hon. Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should get to know what the industry is about. On previous occasions they have explained to the House why they oppose the Bill. Obviously, they were trying to kid their constituents and the Union of Democratic Mineworkers. At least they should be truthful when they tell their constituents that they are opposing the Bill for the right reasons.
It is a great pity that the country and the Government have not learnt any lessons. In 1972 Conservative Members applied the same philophy to cheap oil. Thank God we have a mining industry because the Tories were nearly caught with their pants down. Thank God that the mining industry survived. History shows that the coal industry can compete, given the same terms and understanding as are given to other British industries. It is a great pity that market forces dominate everything to the detriment of our country and that Government policies are motivated only by profit and greed.
It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) did not remain in his previous constituency instead of opting out. I feel sure that his former constituents in Scunthorpe would have been only too pleased to vote for his opponents. He put forward what he had done for his constituents as a model and then opted out without giving them a chance to show how they felt. Had he stayed, I am sure that his former constituents would have returned a different Member of Parliament.
If that had happened in days gone by, the Monarch would have sent for the Tories responsible and had their heads chopped off. The Government's policies are not in the long-term interest of the nation and should not be pursued.
Finally, if we are interested in humanity, we should be interested not only in Britain but in the world because we have a duty and an international commitment to humanity. The Bill seeks to import coal from South Africa and Colombia and that can be motivated only by profit and greed. It is a pity that the Bill was not amended in Committee because of the Chairman's casting vote. It stinks that the Government support it and there is no doubt whatsoever that there is a Whip on the Bill. This time it has not been put on paper, but it has got round by word of mouth. They are telling hon. Members to support the Bill to make sure that they get a Government job.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I shall be brief and to the point, which is very much in character, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) will agree. The Bill is about closing pits and importing apartheid coal. The miners know it, the mining communities know it and a hell of a lot of people on both sides of the House know it. The Conservative Members who support the Bill also know it. The Government also support the Bill. Tonight, as we have seen throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Government will bring out the payroll vote. The woman from the little flat above the shop will probably support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
I am pleased that Conservative Members who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies oppose the Bill. We are told that four Parliamentary Private Secretaries oppose it, but I remember the days when, if a PPS felt strongly about an issue and wanted to be taken seriously, he made his views felt. If a Bill that will close a dozen Nottinghamshire pits is not a point of principle for a Nottinghamshire Member of Parliament, I do not know what is. I would have more faith in the sincerity of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and others if they said, "On a matter of principle I am resigning as a PPS", but they have not chosen to do so.
The miners' parliamentary group knows only too well the effect that the Bill will have on mining communities, as does the Coalfield Communities Campaign. To its credit, it has gone up and down the country putting the case for the coalfield communities. Unfortunately, one or two hypocrites have put their name to the campaign but have had no heart in it.
The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is playing the jester tonight. He talked about Labour Members wanting a cosy monopoly for Members sponsored by the National Union of Mineworkers. I shall remind him of the cosy monopoly that they have had since the Government took office in 1979. They have had 120 pit closures, over 150,000 miners have lost their jobs and a proposal in the Coal Industry Bill will lead to another 40,000 jobs being lost.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman complains about the number of pit closures under this Government. Will he remind the House of the pit closures record of the Labour Government under the stewardship of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)?

Mr. Hood: I will not take up that point. Some Conservative Members who represent Nottinghamshire have seen 18,500 jobs lost in Nottinghamshire since 1979 but have said nothing about it. Another 10,000 to 12,000 jobs will he lost in Nottinghamshire.
We know the effect that the Bill will have on mining communities. I sincerely hope that some Conservative Members will have the guts to stand up for the communities and will not support the bovver boys of the South African Government.

Mr. George J. Buckley: I am pleased to contribute to the debate, which has run over months and, indeed, years, to highlight the devastation that the Bill will cause if it is passed.
I am sure that its passing will have a major effect on my constituency and the general economy of the area that I represent. The decline of the British coal industry as a major employer in the mining communities has had a considerable and disastrous effect since 1985. Labour Members do not doubt that if the Bill is passed more than 25 collieries will be at risk.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is talking to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and not listening to the debate, said that the purpose of the Bill is to divert shipping from Rotterdam to the Humber port. That is an acceptance that the purpose of the Bill is to divert shipping off-loading coal in Rotterdam to the Humber ports.
I find it disdainful that the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes has tried to mislead the House by suggesting that the intention of the Bill is not the one that I have stated. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) was a member of the special Committee which considered the Bill. In his speech he made the relevant and salient point that the proposal could not be sustained economically without large imports of coal going through the port. It must be in the mind of the developer to import large amounts of coal.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is contradicted by the developers, who readily admitted in the Committee that they would be able to import only 1·2 million tonnes of coal by 1993. Obviously they cannot import more than 2·5 million tonnes because the port will not be capable of handling more than that at that point. I suggest that the promoters of the Bill intend to expand the capacity of the ports precisely in order to increase the tonnage capacity from 2·5 million tonnes to a possible 10, 12 or 15 million tonnes. Conservative Members who deny that that is the purpose behind the Bill are blinded by their political disdain for miners and the mining industry.
Evidence was submitted to the private Bill Committee by the petitioners against the Bill about consequences of the proposed tonnage of imported coal. They suggested that 15 collieries would he closed with a loss of 15,000 jobs if, as British Coal suggests, 7 million tonnes of coal were imported.
Opposition Members are clear that the imposition of this private Bill will have major consequences on the mining industry. I hope that the House will reject it. It is ironic that those Conservative Members who oppose the Bill are the same hon. Members who supported the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in 1984 to 1985, who put the Government in the position that they are in today. The UDM miners will be the people most affected by the importation of coal which the Bill will allow. It is ironic that those miners, whom Conservative Members represent, will be most affected by the proposals on nuclear power stations.

Mr. Meale: Is my hon. Friend aware that already the noise—

Mr. Michael Brown: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 209.

Division No. 32]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forth, Eric


Amess, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arbuthnot, James
Freeman, Roger


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
French, Douglas


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Gale, Roger


Aspinwall, Jack
Gardiner, George


Atkins, Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkinson, David
Gill, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Goodlad, Alastair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bellingham, Henry
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bendall, Vivian
Gow, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Benyon, W.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Body, Sir Richard
Ground, Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Harris, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bowis, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Holt, Richard


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hordern, Sir Peter


Brazier, Julian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bright, Graham
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Buck, Sir Antony
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Chris
Irvine, Michael


Butterfill, John
Irving, Sir Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Janman, Tim


Carrington, Matthew
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cash, William
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Chapman, Sydney
Kilfedder, James


Chope, Christopher
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Knapman, Roger


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Colvin, Michael
Knox, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cormack, Patrick
Lang, Ian


Couchman, James
Lawrence, Ivan


Cran, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lord, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dykes, Hugh
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Eggar, Tim
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Emery, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Favell, Tony
Malins, Humfrey


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mans, Keith


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul





Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shersby, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sims, Roger


Maude, Hon Francis
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speller, Tony


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mudd, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Norris, Steve
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Paice, James
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Warren, Kenneth


Price, Sir David
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Redwood, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Rhodes James, Robert
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilshire, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Winterton, Nicholas


Rowe, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Ryder, Richard
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sackville, Hon Tom
Yeo, Tim


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. James Hill and


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Mr. David Davis.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Alexander, Richard
Buchan, Norman


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beckett, Margaret
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clelland, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Coleman, Donald


Blair, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boateng, Paul
Corbett, Robin


Boyes, Roland
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bradley, Keith
Cousins, Jim


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cox, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Crowther, Stan


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cryer, Bob






Cummings, John
Hood, Jimmy


Cunningham, Dr John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Doug


Darling, Alistair
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Ingram, Adam


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Greville


Dixon, Don
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dobson, Frank
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Knowles, Michael


Eadie, Alexander
Lambie, David


Eastham, Ken
Lamond, James


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Latham, Michael


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Leighton, Ron


Fatchett, Derek
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Faulds, Andrew
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Fearn, Ronald
Lewis, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Litherland, Robert


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Livingstone, Ken


Fisher, Mark
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Flannery, Martin
Lord, Michael


Flynn, Paul
Loyden, Eddie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McAllion, John


Foster, Derek
McAvoy, Thomas


Foulkes, George
McCartney, Ian


Fraser, John
Macdonald, Calum A.


Fyfe, Maria
McFall, John


Galloway, George
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
McKelvey, William


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
McLeish, Henry


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mildred
Madden, Max


Graham, Thomas
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Marek, Dr John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grocott, Bruce
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hardy, Peter
Martlew, Eric


Harman, Ms Harriet
Maxton, John


Haynes, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Meale, Alan


Heffer, Eric S.
Michael, Alun


Hinchliffe, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Moonie, Dr Lewis





Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Mullin, Chris
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Murphy, Paul
Snape, Peter


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


O'Brien, William
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Steinberg, Gerry


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stevens, Lewis


Parry, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Pike, Peter L.
Stott, Roger


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Prescott, John
Straw, Jack


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Wall, Pat


Reid, Dr John
Wallace, James


Richardson, Jo
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Robinson, Geoffrey
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian


Ruddock, Joan
Winnick, David


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Short, Clare
Mr. Bernie Grant.


Skinner. Dennis

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could draw to the attention of the Serjeant at Arms the difficulties created in New Palace Yard by the hordes of ministerial cars blocking the area and preventing easy access to it—because of a Bill that is not supposed to be whipped hut for which the payroll vote has clearly turned out to get it through.

Co-operative Development Agency

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Tim Eggar): I beg to move,
That the draft Co-operative Development Agency (Winding-up and Dissolution) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30 November, be approved.
The Co-operative Development Agency was established by the last Labour Government under the Co-operative Development Agency Act 1978—[Interruption.]

Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an extremely important Bill that abolishes an important organisation. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members who are not listening to the debate will leave the Chamber as quickly and as quietly as possible.

Mr. Eggar: In 1977, a working party was appointed by the then Secretary of State for Industry to develop the idea of a CDA. One of the working party's recommendations was that the Government should bear the cost of setting up the agency and running it for a period of three years. After that, it was expected that the CDA would become self-financing.
The original remit of the CDA was a wide one—to promote the adoption and the better understanding of co-operative principles and to represent the interests of the co-operative movement. The Board of the CDA decided to concentrate on the worker co-operative sector and it has been successful in promoting the co-operative concept and encouraging the setting up of worker co-operatives. When the CDA was first founded, there were only 300 worker co-operatives; today there are more than 2,000. The agency has also developed a set of model rules for registering co-operatives.
Plans for the agency to become self-financing have not been borne out by experience and it became clear that the CDA was unlikely to become self-sufficient. This Government extended the life of the agency through the 1981 Co-operative Development Agency (Grants) Order and allowed funding for the agency up to the maximum of £1·5 million provided for under the 1978 Act. That limit was extended to £3 million under the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984, which also gave the CDA greater freedom to act commercially to undertake training and to enter into partnership.
The ceiling of £3 million set in the 1984 Act was due to be reached around the second half of 1990. The Government needed to decide whether to extend the life of the current CDA, to alter its functions or to propose its winding up.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) asked the chairman of the CDA to present proposals for its own future, including the feasibility of a wider remit covering alternative forms of work. Those proposals, received in June 1988, suggested refocusing the agency's activities on the areas of employee participation and employee share ownership through employee share ownership plans, with only a minor role for co-operative development.
We accepted the CDA's case that the work of supporting and promoting co-operatives could be carried out by other organisations at local level. We could not accept the argument that the CDA's role should extend to ESOPs. After all, there is already considerable private sector activity in that area, and it would not be appropriate to give such responsibilities to a statutory body.
In January 1989, my Department issued a consultation letter throughout the co-operative movement proposing that the CDA should be wound up. The responses to the letter were evenly divided on the question of continuing to support the CDA. A factor that weighed especially heavily in the consideration of the responses was that the organisations that supported the proposal for closure were in the worker co-operative sector. There was a general impression in those responses that the CDA had done its job and that there was no continuing need for a statutory body to promote co-operative development.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that the Co-operative Development Agency receives 2,000 inquiries every year from people interested in setting up new co-operatives? Who will deal with those inquiries once the CDA is wound up?

Mr. Eggar: It is a pleasure to answer the hon. Gentleman and to speak to him across the Dispatch Box again. A number of queries that now go to the CDA will be dealt with by other bodies, be they local CDAs or other bodies that wish to set up a service of the kind that the CDA is now offering.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. I shall return to the matter when I reply to the debate, and I have news later in my speech which may reassure him.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not want the Minister's speech to be decimated, but he might be interested to know, bearing in mind his former incarnation, that Costa Rica is notable for the promotion of co-operatives. He might care to examine that situation. I trust that he is not saying that local agencies can provide the whole range of expertise, knowledge, understanding and experience that is provided by the national CDA, which can learn lessons from one part of the country and apply them elsewhere.
When inquiries come in to be dealt with—as I said, the CDA is dealing with 2,000 a year—they can be dealt with in a national perspective, with all the experience and understanding that is available from the CDA's national involvement. Is the Minister aware that no body will be fulfilling that function once he has wound up the CDA?

Mr. Eggar: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. There are already other bodies able to fulfil that function. Other bodies are doing it now. After all, it was the CDA's response to my predecessor's request for suggestions about the role that the CDA might play that showed that the CDA recognised that there was not a representative role to play with worker co-operatives.
A point of particular concern to Opposition Members is the role that might be played by an organisation after the CDA has been wound up in respect of registration because, as I said, the CDA has played an imaginative and critical role in helping worker co-operatives to set up.


Discussions are continuing between the CDA and other bodies that might take on that role, and that role must be negotiated with the Registrar of Friendly Societies. There was, as I said, a general impression in the responses to the consultation document that the CDA had done its job.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, announced on 13 July the Government's decision that the life of the CDA should not be extended when the ceiling for funding was reached. We had asked the CDA to prepare plans for its closure.
The CDA proposes that the agency should cease functioning by the end of September of this year and that final closure, following a three-month winding up period, should be completed by the end of December 1990. The CDA has contacted organisations supporting cooperatives seeking views on which other organisations might wish to take over its existing activities.

Mr. Michael: The Minister referred to the likely role of local CDAs in taking up some of the work of the CDA, and he will have taken careful note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We need assurances that local CDAs will be encouraged by his Department so that the burden may be picked up comprehensively, for some areas of the country are covered effectively by local CDAs while others have no such organisations.

Mr. Eggar: We have already discussed that together, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. I certainly see a role for assistance with the formation of co-operatives for the new TECs, the training and enterprise councils. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman. I shall point out to TEC boards and TEC chairmen that one of the things that I hope they will look at is local assistance for the establishment of co-operatives. The nature of that help will vary from one area to another, but I am sure that it will be available and I should like to see that.

Mr. James Wallace: Can the Minister say whether the tender documentation for TECs makes any reference to co-operatives and co-operative development?

Mr. Eggar: The documentation has not been finalised. Obviously, it cannot cover every area, but I assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assured Opposition Members who came to see me about the matter, that I am convinced that worker co-operatives have an important role to play, especially in inner cities and in areas where traditional forms of business may not be appropriate. I shall draw that to the attention of TEC chairmen and TEC boards. I do not think that there will be any reluctance by TECs, especially those in the inner cities, to follow that through and try to be of assistance. They will be able to work with local CDAs where they exist. Where there are no CDAs, I am sure that TECs will seek to play an active role.

Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Minister for giving way, because question and answer helps to clear up many points. I think that he is saying that either the local CDAs or the TECs will carry on the activities of the national CDA. Will the TECs have an obligation to encourage local co-operatives, or will they simply be able to if they want to? There is an important distinction. The CDA has an obligation. Will that be passed on to the training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Eggar: There will be no legal obligation about encouragement, just as there will be no legal obligation on the TECs in other areas. There is no change to the local CDAs. I do not think that the national CDA is able to play the local role that the local TECs will be able to play. I shall refer later to other parts of the CDA's present role.

Mr. Richard Page: I served on the Committee that examined the original Bill in 1978, and I can assure my hon. Friend that while I and my hon. Friends did not oppose that Bill, we were extremely doubtful that it would be successful on a national basis. We were interested in the local aspect, especially in the light of the Spanish Mondragon experiment. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage local co-operative agencies and developments in the way that we have encouraged small businesses. I remind the House that some 500 net small businesses are set up every week under the system that we have evolved. I am sure that local co-operatives and development agencies will be equally successful.

Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I hesitate to correct him, but I can tell him that some 1,200 net new VAT registrations occur every week, rather than the 500 that he quoted. That means that our policy on small firms is even more successful than he has outlined.
The relatively small number of staff of the CDA who will be made redundant will be offered redundancy on the main Civil Service terms.
I should stress again that the decision to wind up the CDA in no way reflects any criticism on the board or the staff of the agency, because we are very appreciative of the work of Mr. Ralph Woolf, the current chairman of the CDA, his predecessor, Lord Oram, and those who have served on the CDA board. I particularly mention George Jones, the present director of the agency, its former director, Dennis Lawrence, and the CDA staff and those who have worked as volunteers and seconders.
Our decision to wind up the CDA should not be interpreted as meaning that the Government do not support the co-operative concept. Co-operatives have an important role in the Government's housing and agricultural policies. Co-operative ideas are important for small ventures and have particular potential in enterprise as an alternative to conventional forms of business. Co-operatives have particular potential in inner cities and on housing estates.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been contact between the CDA and Bolton Business Ventures with a view to the latter taking on a role as a centre of expertise for co-operative marketing in the north-west? Is not that a good way to develop the co-operative idea as part of the parcel of initiatives that can be offered through excellent enterprise agencies such as Bolton Business Ventures?

Mr. Eggar: I was aware of that, and I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is the way that matters should proceed. I hope that other enterprise agencies, where there are no active CDAs, will take up that opportunity, as well as local TECs. It is particularly interesting that my hon. Friend mentioned the idea of co-operative marketing initiatives. That is an area where there may not have been as much development in the United Kingdom as in other countries.
My Department is prepared to consider applications for financial support for innovative co-operative projects. There has been concern that closure of the CDA, which chaired the Co-operative Forum and provided its secretariat, will result in a general lack of leadership in the co-operative movement.
The need for leadership in the co-operative movement is really a question for the movement itself. It does not provide a case for a statutory body. The hon. Members for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) are worried that there will be no means to represent the movement to Government. The question of continuing the Co-operative Forum is being considered by a study group from among the co-operative movement's members.
As I have already said, I am prepared to consider an application for funding the costs of servicing a new co-operative forum, so long as it is understood that the Government's support will at least be matched by the co-operative movement and that it is on a short-term, pump-priming basis.

Mr. Dennis Turner: If the Minister is to set up some structure in his Department to assist co-operative development and to find resources to help a new co-operative forum, why is he winding up the CDA, if not in a fit of pique? It is evident that it still has much work to do.
The hon. Gentleman must forgive us if we are sceptical about the Government's attitude. We saw the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box holding up the Visa card. The whole idea of co-operative development and co-operative enterprise and its links with Socialism is anathema to the Government. That is the real reason why the CDA is being wound up. Co-operative developments are going on the length and breadth of the land. They need the CDA. The Minister cries crocodile tears at the end of the CDA, yet at the same time tells us—[Interruption.] Let me ask the Minister a question. If the Minister supports co-operative development enterprises, why does he make difficulties—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is enough for an intervention.

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you had such a hard time as a result of that intervention. We have not acted in a fit of pique. The Government have come back twice to the House to extend the life of the CDA and the funding available to it. It was made clear in the working party established by the then Secretary of State for Trade in a Labour Government that central Government funding was to enable the CDA to get off to a good start, but that it would have to rely for its funding on the co-operative movement as a whole.
The present Government have twice gone out of their way to extend the CDA's life. When the 1984 Bill was introduced, we made it clear that we were looking to the agency to fund itself, and we extended the powers available to it so that it could develop into other areas and thus assist in its own funding. Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling, it is unfair of him to describe our decision—which has the support of a large part of the co-operative movement—as one made in a fit of pique. I repeat: the Government are prepared to

consider funding an organisation that would represent the co-operative movement, provided that it is on a short-term, pump-priming basis and matched by funds from within the movement itself.
As the Minister responsible for small firms, of course I represent the interests of all forms of smaller enterprise to my colleagues within Government, and I shall continue to do so on behalf of the co-operative movement. I and my officials are willing to pursue any points of Government policy that affect co-operative enterprises.
I emphasise that, as the Government's enterprise policies will be increasingly delivered by training and enterprise councils, local CDAs and other co-operative organisations should be directing themselves at the boards of the emergent TECs. They will need to demonstrate what they and the co-operative movement have to contribute to local economic development.
In general, we do not intend to tell the TECs how to run their affairs, but, as I have already made clear, I shall point out to TEC chairmen and board members the important contribution that co-operatives can make, especially in inner city areas.
The Government are happy to support the co-operative concept and are prepared to contribute to the funding of innovative projects. The Government have, after consultation, concluded that there is no continuing need for a statutory body to promote the concept of co-operatives, and therefore we are not seeking legislation to prolong the life of the Co-operative Development Agency or to increase the ceiling for funding. The order thus proposes that the Co-operative Development Agency should be wound up.

Mr. Tony Blair: It is a pleasure to speak on the subject of the Co-operative Development Agency, especially as I am the president of a local agency in my own northern region.
The Minister concedes that the CDA has done good work and that that work must continue. The only question that the House must decide tonight is whether, on the basis of the Minister's comments, there is any realistic possibility of the CDA's functions continuing under the type of institutions that he favours. Any reasonable person listening to the Minister's speech would conclude that the answer to that question is, at worst, no—and that, at best, it is a doubtful yes.
The CDA was established in 1978 after a long debate within the co-operative movement and elsewhere. The idea was to establish a sole agency to provide leadership in the co-operative sector, co-ordinate the activities of cooperative development, and allow and facilitate the exchange of the best ideas and practices within the movement. At that time, there were only about 150 co-operatives operating in the United Kingdom, employing 4,000 to 5,000 people. The Bill to set up the Co-operative Development Agency was given an unopposed Second Reading. Therefore, it was established by consensus, and because there was a powerful case for it.
In 1981, the working of the CDA was reviewed and, on the whole, it was found to be successful. In 1984, we debated in detail whether to extend its funding for a further period and the argument that it should be extended


was accepted. The present Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who at that time was the Minister in charge of these matters, said:
We are convinced that the CDA represents a useful means of promoting employment and is a small but significant addition to our general policy towards small business."—[Official Report, 7 February 1984; Vol. 53, c. 778.]
In 1984 there were some 1,200 inquiries a year coming to the CDA, and there were 700 co-ops. The CDA continued to develop the co-operative movement and to increase the number of co-operatives and the number of people employed in them—so much so that, in 1987, the Department of Employment published a survey of the CDA, and again accepted the case for its continuing role.
Today, we have reached the stage where the CDA receives about 3,000 inquiries a year, and some 2,000 co-operatives are in existence. Some people believe that as many as 25,000 jobs have been created within the co-operative movement. Of course, that was also a result of the work of many other bodies, but it is reasonable to assume that the CDA played some part in the process. There are also about 100 local development agencies, the majority of which are assisted by local government—indeed, they would not exist were it not for local government, and I shall explain the importance of that in a moment.
From my own experience in the northern region, I know that the nature of co-operatives also has changed. The conventional idea of a co-operative is a health food shop, but there are now light engineering co-operatives and catering and security service co-operatives in the northern region. They cover a range of worthwhile activities.
The CDA has extended its activities. Worker co-operatives now form only about 70 per cent., at the best estimate, of their functions. There are 70 marketing co-operatives operating in the United Kingdom to help companies and others to realise the best advantages in marketing. There are community co-operatives and equity finance co-operatives.
The Government's position on the future of the CDA, which has been explained in brief answers, can be summarised as this: the CDA has outlived its usefulness and there are now other agencies that will perform its tasks.
We must ask searching questions, in the light of what the Minister accepts is the good record of the CDA, on whether its work will continue. There is apprehension in the co-operative movement, even among those sectors of it that may have had doubts about the CDA, as to whether the work of the agency, valuable though it is acknowledged to be, will continue as it should.
I do not think that anyone can say that the role of a national body has become otiose. Perhaps the most important reason for saying that is that elsewhere in Europe co-operative development activity is expanding. In Spain, Mondragon has assets worth more than £5 million.

In France, 5 per cent. of activity is carried on in co-operatives and in Italy the co-operative movement is growing and is at about 7 per cent.

Mr. Thurnham: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the co-operative movement in Italy is subsidised by the Government in a way that will have to cease before 1992, as it will contravene the Single European Act?

Mr. Blair: The contingency plans recognise the need for a central body to co-ordinate that activity. With respect, I think that Italy makes our case rather than the hon. Gentleman's.
Part of the Government's case is that the work done by the national CDA will continue to be done by the local CDAs. As the Government accept, local CDAs are largely dependent on local authority funding, and I do not think that any local authority member whom I have consulted believes that the Government can be sanguine about the prospect of that funding continuing. Last year saw the closure of a number of local CDAs: indeed, the umbrella CDA for the northern region has had to be wound up.
The burden of the Minister's speech was that we should rely on the training and enterprise councils to do the job. That is a remarkable proposition. The TECs are a largely unknown quantity even in respect of training, let alone looking after co-operatives, and no one could reasonably say that co-operatives will be a priority for them.
When my hon. Friends and I asked whether the TECs would be under an obligation to assist co-operatives, the Minister effectively said that they would not; there would merely be a ministerial desire for assistance to be given. He must forgive us for desiring something a little more concrete to bolster the co-operative movement, especially as it will lose some of the private sector European funding that it currently receives.
As it has been accepted that the CDA does a good job and that its function is still required, I feel that we are entitled to some sound guarantees before we take the step of winding it up: we must be sure that that function can be properly performed by other bodies. As matters stand, it is impossible to be at all confident that the support enjoyed by co-operatives during the CDA's tenure can be realistically expected to continue. If it does not, many thousands of co-op workers—who want to be their own bosses and keep the profits that they make, and who enjoy the co-operative spirit—will be put at risk.
This may not be a central sector of the United Kingdom's economy, but it is a vital one. With the degree of Government commitment that we require, the sector could grow. I ask the Minister to think again, even at this late stage. It would be tragic if, casually—for I think that the Government's attitude is casual—we allowed an opportunity to build up such a worthwhile part of our economy to pass us by. If we let the co-operatives suffer, the country will suffer, too, and the Labour party will not agree to that without protest.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome the opportunity to speak on an employment subject, given my new-found freedom on the Back Benches. I also welcome the Government's decision that the time has come to move on from the CDA concept. The CDA was a quango set up by the Labour Government—although the present Government have given it their support during the 12 years of its existence, and have allowed it every chance to develop in new ways by means of local enterprise agencies, as I mentioned in an earlier intervention.
I must take up the point made by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) about Italy. Italy—where the co-operative idea is as well developed as it is anywhere—recognises the need to move away from state backing. The report, headed "Joint Enterprise Groups in Italy", produced by the CDA study group which visited Italy, points out that existing aid amounts to as much as 40 per cent. rebate of expenses within the Italian co-operatives. However, it recognises that after 1992 aid will have to cease, because that would be against the EEC's anti-competitive laws. The report continues:
With the expected ending of state aid after 1992, some consorzi directors felt that they should go into trading, buying and selling on behalf of members, for which a commission would be charged and thus becoming financially independent. It seems therefore that post-1992, United Kingdom marketing groups (which are not receiving any state aid)will be on equal footing to their Italian counterparts".
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield is looking to Italy, he is looking at exactly what is being done in this country now. We are ahead of the Italians.
Without a doubt, the enterprise agencies can do the job much better than any national co-operative development agency. I am pleased that when Bolton Business Ventures was set up in 1983 the Prime Minister paid it a visit. It has gone from strength to strength. It is a great tribute to the partnership between central Government, local government and private business. It is a great credit to Mr. Derrick Warburton and Mr. Roger McMullen in particular, who played such an important part in setting it up. The present director, Mr. Paul Davidson, supplies the leadership that is so important an ingredient in any partnership or co-operative. The Minister referred to the importance of leadership in the co-operative movement. It must come from within the movement. It should not be forced upon it by means of a quango.

Mr. Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that enterprise agencies need help from public funds? It is that, as well as the partnerships that they create, which enables them to help businesses to develop. I am the director of a successful enterprise agency. Does he accept that the integrated nature of the co-operative work that is available within the agency is a strength that is recognised by other sectors? However, special skills, advice and knowledge are needed if the agency is to be able to assist co-operatives to develop.

Mr. Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The success of enterprise agencies depends on the development of a spirit of partnership. However, nothing remains static. Organisations must develop. Enterprise agencies should become much more self-sufficient and less dependent upon Government funding.

That is needed when new businesses agencies are set up, but it should not be so necessary for businesses that are already well established.
Bolton Business Ventures is discussing with the Co-operative Development Agency the possibility of establishing a centre of co-operative marketing expertise in the north-west to take over the role that formerly was partially played by the CDA'S office in Manchester. There have been moves to set up a new body—Co-operative Enterprise North-West—to take over the work that is done by the Manchester office. I wish any future organisation well, but it must stand on its own feet and not look to the Government for support.
Leadership is all important in any co-operative. The individual members of the co-operative must decide among themselves what their responsibilities should be. The success of any organisation ultimately depends either on a single leader or on a very small team who are able to assume the full leadership role that is so very much needed.
I welcome the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister about the possible role of training and enterprise councils in helping to continue the work of the CDA in providing encouragement to co-operatives. I am sure that we should look in an all-embracing way at co-operatives as just one initiative, one venture, among many alternatives in which business enterprises can develop. Individuals should consider all the alternatives that they can adopt in developing their own businesses.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying "all the alternatives". There can be only two alternatives. The hon. Gentleman should refer to "all the options".

Mr. Thurnham: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an infinite number of options and different ways in which businesses can organise themselves. The eastern European countries see the United Kingdom Government as an outstanding example of how an administration can help small businesses. I look forward to the continuing success of all the Government's initiatives in this sector.

Mr. James Wallace: If one is allowed to be sentimental on these occasions, it may be worth reflecting that, while the 1978 legislation was unopposed, my former hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, Richard Wainwright, was influential during the Lib-Lab pact in pushing it forward. That might be acknowledged by the occupants of both Front Benches. Despite the rhetoric that often comes from the Government Front Bench about the horrors of the Lib-Lab pact—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: What of your ex-right hon. Friend, Jo Grimond?

Mr. Wallace: My predecessor, who is now Lord Grimond, with his particular references to the Mondragon experience, raised this issue on many occasions in the Chamber, and he continues to do so in another place. The 1978 Act was a worthwhile product of that period of government, and that has been recognised by the Minister this evening. Indeed, that also was recognised when the 1984 legislation was passing through the House. The CDA has fulfilled an important role in the development of co-operative enterprises in Britain, and there is still much more that could be done.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), from the Opposition Front Bench, spoke of the 5 per cent. contribution which co-operatives make in France and the 7 per cent. that they achieve in Italy. I do not know what the United Kingdom figure is, but I suspect that it does not even make the statistics. I am sure that there is still considerable room for expansion.
I do not necessarily believe that co-operative ventures the length and breadth of the country offer a universal panacea, but they are one of many forms of ownership and management that can be appropriate in many circumstances. They have a worthwhile contribution to make to the economy.
The Minister referred to the appropriateness of co-operative ventures in inner-city areas. I represent a constituency of remote rural areas where co-operatives, including co-operative shops, have been developed. For example, on the Isle of Eday, in Orkney, and on Papa Westray, a hostel and a guest house have been developed. These co-operatives have been most important in maintaining the social fabric of the communities. In disparate geographical areas, there is clearly a role for co-operatives.
If an agency is right and proper in 1978, it does not automatically follow that it should be fulfilling a similar role in 1990. Before the CDA is wound up, however, we should surely be satisfied that something else will take its place to fill the gap. I was not persuaded, and I do not think that many others were—I do not think that the Minister himself was—when he advanced the various ways in which the gap would be plugged. There are other relevant bodies. For example, the Industrial Common Ownership Movement has a national role and it is widely recognised nationally in its promotion of the co-operative ideal and its advice, and references have been made to the local CDAs, but I do not think that anyone feels that the entire country will be adequately covered if the CDA is wound up.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned the many inquiries which were received in the past year—I think that there were over 2,000—by the CDA. Where are those inquiries now to be referred? I suspect that if people bother to inquire, they will not be answered.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. Under the vesting provisions, every contract, agreement, licence and authority of the CDA passes, with modifications, to the Secretary of State. It is clear to the House—the hon. Gentleman might like to develop this theme—that this is hardly encouraging, because the CDA has the expertise but the Secretary of State has nothing. I therefore pose a question arising from that: why have we heard acclamation of the co-operative movement and every reason, even from the Minister, for retaining the CDA yet not one good sound reason for winding it up?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member makes our point well. It is right to say that the CDA's expertise could be dissipated or lost.
We heard that the training and enterprise councils may be able to take on the role of the CDA, and no doubt as he goes round the country the Minister will encourage chairmen to do so. However, as he said, there is no requirement for them to do so and it is not written into the

tender documentation. Even with the good will of TEC chairmen and board members—in Scotland, one assumes that the local enterprise companies will be given similar encouragement—where will they obtain expertise or advice to support co-operative ventures? It was accepted that local CDAs by no means cover the country, so again there would appear to be a gap.
We cannot depend on TECs or local organisations to fulfil the role of the CDA in a number of other specific matters such as making people aware of the possibility of a co-operative venture.
Much has been said about the European Community. I understand that the European social fund has provided a considerable amount of money that the United Kingdom has been good at tapping to train people in co-ops. I am not saying that if the CDA goes all that money will be lost—the Industrial Common Ownership Movement has done very well in attracting such funding—but much of it could be. Clearly hon. Members have not been satisfied tonight that there will be sufficient bodies with expertise prepared to pick up the pieces after the CDA is wound up.
Tonight we heard the Government support the co-operative venture. I have a book entitled "Small Firms in Britain", which has a fine picture of the Minister at the front, page 18 of which says:
The Government also supports the development of the co-operative sector.
Only one sentence on the subject appears in a large glossy pamphlet on small businesses.
We are entitled to ask, how are the Government supporting the co-operative sector? We have received no answer this evening to that fundamental question other than a hope and a prayer, and that is not sufficient to merit the winding up of the CDA.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I shall be brief, because other hon. Members want to speak.
The challenge posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on the winding up of the Co-operative Development Agency and by my intervention suggest that the Minister is in an exceptionally weak position. One of the penalties of being a Minister is that he has had to come to the House like some courier from a higher authority to pass on the message that the Government have decided to wind up the CDA. Whatever else is said about the CDA, the Minister has conceded that the co-operative movement has an essential part to play in the economy of the nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) mentioned the changing pattern of the co-operative movement. He mentioned its responsiveness to innovation and to the challenges of the regions in which it works and the co-operation that it enjoys with other industries. Busy as it is at regional and local level, its need for professional advisers was answered by the development of the CDA. The CDA could sit back and give the professional advice that was essential to the development and investment projections of a wide range of co-operatives.
When the House has before it an order such as this at this late hour, it is entitled to be given substantive reasons why the CDA must be wound up. More than that, the House is considerably discouraged that the Government are winding up the CDA while paying lip service to the


co-operative movement. They suggested that the contracts, licensing function, agreements and the authority of the CDA should be passed to the Secretary of State.
How on earth can the Government envisage that a state Department could fulfil even tentatively or marginally the role of the CDA's professional advisers? That is a challenge that the Minister may like to consider. In years to come, he might suggest that this measure was a sort of apprenticeship for him. It is his first mistake, for the simple reason that he has parroted a brief which has been prepared for him for which he is not entirely responsible. It is his duty to do it, and I commend him for that.
The measure has been retailed because somewhere in the Government—probably in the Minister's Department—a decision has been made to lead the House of Commons to believe that the Government are still with the co-operative movement and that, under the Secretary of State's umbrella, the CDA can be dispensed with. That is utter nonsense. The Minister must find reasons which the House will understand substantially to support the Government's determination to wind up the CDA. He will not find any, because there is none.
For the first time in the House, a statutory body has been disposed of without the Minister giving a reason for it. I have seen many quangos disappear. The argument that there were too many jobs for the boys was sound. That is a different kettle of fish. In this case, a substantial co-operative movement is doing remarkable work with people who have great enthusiasm and are producing results. Although there have been failures, the movement has a remarkable record. There is a healthy level of co-operation between the co-operative movement and industry in my region.
The challenge to the Minister is simple. Before we vote on this measure, can he find one reason why he has become the messenger boy of someone who has acted prejudicially in Government circles against the CDA?

Mr. John McFall: It is a privilege for me to speak tonight as the chairman of the parliamentary group on co-operatives. I note that the last opportunity that we had to debate the issue was on the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984.
The CDA was established by Act of Parliament in 1978 to promote the development of a co-operative sector of the economy. I pay tribute to several people who were wise and prescient enough to introduce the Act. They are my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), who was the Minister of State, Department of Industry at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who introduced the Bill on the Floor of the House, and two deceased hon. Members, my friend Sidney Irvine and Laurie Pavitt, who played a great part in the 1978 debate and I record our appreciation of those deceased Members.
Another hon. Member who welcomed the Bill was the then hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), now the Secretary of State for Health. He gave it a cautious welcome and said that if it adhered to the market economy he would welcome it. My friend the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) should

note that his colleague at that time, Richard Wainwright, made sure that it adhered to the market system and that guaranteed the Government's welcome for the Bill. Throughout its history the CDA has adhered to the market economy and it has been correct in all its dealings. We view its demise tonight with great sadness.
When the CDA was set up it had a grant of almost £900,000. In 1981 that grant was increased to £1.5 million and in 1984 it was further increased to £3 million. In the years since then, however, it has had not more than £200,000 to spend. It has done a lot in those years on a meagre budget.
It is worth noting the 1987 report of the Management and Personnel Office of the Treasury, which looks at non-departmental public bodies. That report was complimentary about the CDA and, although it recognised that closure was an option in 1990, it learned towards a more expanded role for the CDA. That report is a further reason for its retention. The report recommended that it should continue to encourage the development of co-ops as they contributed to employment opportunities. The report said that such co-ops had led to the growth of employee participation. It is important to recognise that.
Since 1978 we have had a private sector, a public sector and, most importantly, a readily identifiable co-operative sector. With the demise of the CDA no recognition will be given to that third sector.
As a result of the establishment of the CDA, opportunities were given to those who might otherwise have been disadvantaged in the labour market—that was also mentioned in the 1987 report. The CDA has done its job to help those who might be adversely affected by business closure. It has helped women, ethnic minorities and the disadvantaged of inner-city areas.
I have met with Ministers to plead with them on behalf of the CDA. After listening to the Minister tonight, it is clear that we are up against benign neglect on his part. Tonight no one could claim that the Minister knows thoroughly what the CDA is about. We could not put our hands on our hearts and say that the Minister, having looked at the problem and taken a caring stance towards employment and the third sector, was right to decide that there was an alternative. What has stood out tonight is that there is no alternative.

Mr. Michael: The Minister has said that a little money will be available on a pump-priming basis only hereafter. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that Government encouragement is important for business generally? Aid to business generally has gone on for many years, but no one talks about tapering or stopping that aid. Support for the co-operative sector, an important business sector, should not be allowed to trail off. It should remain an important element for the long-term future.

Mr. McFall: Exactly. The figures available make a credible case for the CDA. In 1977–78 there were 180 co-operatives. Ten years later, in March 1988, there were 2,000. It has been estimated that 25,000 jobs have been created in workers co-ops since 1978, at an average cost of £3,500 a job. That is a matter for debate, but when the Minister sums up will he answer these points? Has he taken those issues on board when deciding to run down and wind up the Co-operative Development Agency? Many of those


employed in the 25,000 new jobs would not have established any other form of business had it not been for co-operative enterprise, and that is important.
I wish to do the Minister justice and analyse the Government's case for closing down the CDA. I have looked through the Second Reading debates in 1978 and his predecessors' statements and I detect three main reasons for the Government saying that they will close it down. First, the CDA has done the work that Parliament asked it to do. That is an insulting answer because the CDA was obliged, under the 1978 Act, to make annual reports to Parliament, which was obliged to look at them. Not once in those 10 years has there been any criticism of the CDA and what it does.
The Minister says that the CDA has done its work and there will now be a network of local CDAs. However, will they still be in line and be able to maintain a strategic direction for their work? It must be remembered that those local CDAs have prospered over the years only because of the deep involvement of local authorities. I do not need to remind my hon. Friends that local authorities have been under tremendous pressure during the past 10 years, not least due to the introduction of poll tax. Therefore, local CDAs will not have recourse, through local authorities, to the pump priming that they require. Local CDAs cannot take over from where the national organisation has left off. If the Government still intend to wind up the CDA, would it not be sensible for them to support local co-operatives and therefore avoid duplication, and give the job to organisations with a track record and an expertise built up over 10 years?
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) mentioned the number of inquiries. The CDA received 2,754 inquiries in 1987–88, the last year for which figures are available. To where will those inquiries be directed? The Minister should consider that. Will the inquirers ring up the Department of Employment? If so, the phones will be red hot.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he is teasing out an important point. Two possible methods of inquiry were reflected in the Minister's speech. First, people could go to local CDAs and, therefore, the Minister should give a commitment to give assistance to widening the network of local CDAs. Secondly, as my hon. Friend has just mentioned, there is an obligation on the TECs to provide help. Will the Minister spell out an obligation on the TECs, and will he ensure, through his Department, that they have the necessary expertise for this specialised element of employment creation and business assistance? That element is important. It would greatly reassure us if the Minister were able to spell it out in that way.

Mr. McFall: I shall come to that point. Will the Minister be kind enough to leave his home telephone number so that the 2,754 inquiries can be directed there? That is as good a reason as any I have heard from the Minister, so I am looking for a response on that.
The Government say that the financial arrangements for the CDA are more generous and available to enterprise agencies. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I say that my local enterprise trust could not have prospered had it not been for the good work of the district and regional councils. That position is mirrored throughout

the country. Therefore, the new arrangements are not more generous and available to enterprise agencies. Because of the lobbying in 1978—

Mr. Turner: The Minister offered the opportunity for CDAs to respond at local level, but he must know very well what the experience of local government has been under this Government. He knows that section 137 has made it far more difficult for local authorities to respond to CDAs. The Minister must tell us tonight that he will allocate money to local government and to TECs if he wants to achieve the aims that he set out.

Mr. McFall: TECs are a virgin enterprise; we do not know how they will perform, so how can the Minister be confident that they will look after the interests of the co-operative sector? The interests of this third sector of the economy have been looked after year in, year out by local authorities, which have provided the pump priming. That will now be taken away.
The Minister's last argument, by implication, was that the Government no longer support the idea of a Government-funded national agency. But the Government fund other agencies—Food from Britain, the Housing Corporation, and the Equal Opportunities Commission, for instance. I have not heard the Government argue for their dissolution, so if they are in favour of such organisations, why not the CDA?
I ask the Minister seriously to consider the economic disadvantages if the co-operative enterprises go down. Co-operatives are different from companies. They have different constitutions and aims, but, like companies, they operate under the imperatives and within the restraints of the market. That was evident in 1978 and that truth stands today.
The existence of the CDA gives co-operation a higher status. It shows people that the Government are interested in the third sector—

Dr. Godman: Is there nothing in the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Bill, which had its Second Reading last night, that might provide the Scottish co-operatives with any comfort and compensation for this disgraceful action?

Mr. McFall: The Minister cannot come up with anything. Everything is still at the drawing board stage and up for bargaining. Co-operatives must take their chance along with others. The Government have the brass neck to get rid of the co-operative sector at the same time as going ahead with the TECs scheme in Scotland. The Government are showing that they are not interested in the 25,000 jobs that have been created in the past 10 years, or in any other jobs that might come from the co-operatives. If they were interested, they would encourage the CDAs—that would show that they were serious. I have had three meetings with Ministers in two Departments about this, which shows that the CDA crosses departmental boundaries. That does not happen in other areas. Now, however, we shall return to dealing with a single Department.
The co-operative sector—workers' co-ops, housing co-ops and so on—has widespread implications for the economy. Although the Minister was kind enough to give us the chance to discuss the matter, he showed no appreciation of how we feel about it, or of its economic consequences. Bearing in mind that the Government have


not repealed the Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984, or the 1978 Act, I look forward to the next Labour Government reconstituting the CDA. I only hope for the sake of the country, the economy and the people in these enterprises that that will be done within their first 12 months of office.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the constructive comments about the way in which the functions of the Co-operative Development Agency should continue after the life of that body is ended, as the Minister clearly intends it to be.
I declare an interest as I am sponsored by the co-operative movement in which I have been involved for almost 20 years. It is something of a tradition in my constituency as my predecessor, now Lord Callaghan, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), encouraged the original concept of an agency. I was a founder member of my local CDA and also of the local enterprise agency.
I commend to the Minister the model of the Cardiff and Vale CDA and the Cardiff and Vale enterprise agency, which work closely together. I think that the Minister would acknowledge that the enterprise agency is one of the most successful in the country. That might be because on its board are representatives from local authorities and other public sector bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency, together with representatives from private business, such as locally based industrialists who take an interest in the economy, and from the Co-operative Development Agency. That sort of strong partnership, where each of the models available can be used to the best advantage, is just what we should be encouraging.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Too often we hear Ministers trying to put co-operatives into a tight category. I, too, am sponsored by the co-operative movement and together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) I played a significant role in starting the first Co-operative Development Agency in England and Wales—in west Glamorgan. Is it not true that all who have been involved in the great movement of small co-operatives know that many people who learn the lessons of enterprising co-operatives do not always stay with them, but take those lessons to every sort of enterprise? The damage that will be done tonight is that that will stop.

Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I was interested to learn of the results of a survey of the needs of business and the ways to develop business commissioned by the south Glamorgan local authority. The dynamic, entrepreneurial American who undertook the investigative work on behalf of an American company—who we thought would be unsympathetic to the co-operative model—in fact said that with computing and new technology developments it would be the most suitable form of management for small, entrepreneurial firms. He encouraged the idea of building in the support of co-operatives as being the cutting edge of the most appropriate form of modern management.

Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the development of co-operatives and small businesses. Does he think that the Government have a grasp of the ethos of co-operatives? Are they prejudiced in favour of companies set up under the Companies Acts and against those set up by the Industrial Common Ownership Movement? Is that prejudice borne out by their constant consideration for enterprise agencies, which deal with conventional businesses? Does not the proposal to abolish the Co-operative Development Agency show their indifference to the development of co-operative businesses?

Mr. Michael: I understand my hon. Friend's point and agree that the proposed abolition of the CDA supports the concern that he has expressed. Recently, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), on behalf of the co-operative movement-sponsored Members of Parliament, held a meeting with the Minister. Although he has not moved tonight as far as we had hoped, I welcome the fact that he is obviously prepared to listen to our points. The development of co-operatives should not be a matter of controversy or dogma, so I hope that the Minister will consider with an open mind many of the points that have been made in the debate and will search for models that will enable proper support to be given to co-operative development.
The strongest form of machinery for co-operative development is probably at local level. Groups trying to set up often do not have experience and need help over a period of time. They do not need a quick, sharp bit of advice but assistance over time. We need a network of local CDAs, and with the abolition of the national CDA, its function could be filled by some other body at the centre which could help the local network to do a good job throughout the country.
The Minister will appreciate our concern about the training and enterprise councils. These bodies have not yet established a life and expertise, yet they may be the only organisations on which co-operative development can take place in future. The Minister should do everything possible to enable the TECs to gain the necessary expertise to function properly.
Experience shows that time invested in helping groups is repaid well, as my hon. Friends have pointed out. The American expert of whom I spoke made that clear to me. That proves that the expertise of the national CDA should not be lost and that local CDAs and the TECs should be encouraged to take on a positive role. They will need help in the coming years from those who have developed a knowledge of what is required to achieve a successful, small CDA network and for successful co-operative businesses to be developed.

Mr. Dennis Turner: In the few minutes available to me, I make a final appeal to the Minister to think again on this issue. It has been made clear in the debate that a great deal of work remains for CDAs to do. If the Government wish to avoid being charged with not being interested in co-operative development and with having a prejudice against that form of business, they should be prepared to re-examine the matter.
Before coming to the House I was a member of a large workers' co-operative in the west midlands. It has a large


turnover and is a successful business. It was started by eight people who were made redundant from the steel works and who invested their redundancy pay to set up a business. To be truthful, we did not on that occasion need to consult the national CDA. But throughout the country, many businesses have depended on assistance from the agency. The success of a business depends upon its integrity and it must be efficient. It is in the market place and must make sound commercial judgments about the way in which it is run. A co-operative does not depend on being able to call upon a dividend but has to rely on the surpluses that it develops to pay the wages of its workers. The Government should laud such principles.
For years we have had high unemployment and people have languished on the dole and have had to suffer the frustration of not being able to contribute to their community and to the benefit and welfare of their families. We should encourage the kind of development that allows people to set up in business and pay themselves wages, thereby having the independence of a wage packet and the privilege of running a business. That is what co-operative development agencies are assisting thousands of people to do every week.
In the interests of the thousands of people who still want to make a commitment to co-operative development, I ask the Minister to think again about this matter. He should take it back and have another look. Let us keep our co-operatives alive.

Mr. Alan Williams: I was the Minister responsible for the development of the concept of the co-operative development agency. The Bill was a consensus measure when it went through and the present Secretary of State for Employment, who was a Back-Bench Member at the time, commended it to the House when he was speaking to an intermediate Bill after 1978.
We have had incredibly good value from the concept because its cost over the years has been negligible. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the benefits given to the co-operative movement are minute compared with the cost of schemes that have been introduced to help small businesses. By the nature of their structure, co-operatives have been excluded from those schemes. For example, the business expansion scheme was a good and valuable one in its time, but it was equity based and co-operatives, because of their constitutional and financial structures, were unable to apply to the scheme. The money that the Government spent on that project would finance a co-operative development agency for a century with change left over.
It is important to remember the original concept. As my hon. Friends have said, the co-operative sector is the third element in our commercial operations, the other two being the private and public sectors. The aim was to try to develop this intermediate sector as it has been developed elsewhere in Europe. The co-operative movement is diverse and has a range of activities and, therefore, concentration is difficult. Similarly, a range of Government Departments have responsibilities that impinge upon the co-operative movement, and concentration is difficult there. At negligible cost we provided a focal point for the co-operative movement and for Government

which has facilitated ease of consultation for over a decade. That has benefited the co-operatives and the Government. Sadly, it is being unnecessarily destroyed.

Mr. Eggar: We have had a good and well-informed debate. I have listened with considerable care to the experiences of Opposition Members and I have taken on board the detailed points that they have made.
I repeat the assurance that my Department will look at innovative proposals and we will consider whether we can fund them. I also repeat that we are prepared to help the co-operative movement by part funding, pump-priming, a secretariat for a short period until it can fund itself fully, as long as those funds are matched by the co-operative movement.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) when he says how sad it is that the late Laurie Pavitt and the late Sydney Irving could not be present. During their time in the House they made a tremendous contribution to the cause of the co-operative movement in the House and more widely. In addition, my friend, the noble Lord Graham, still plays a considerable role in the other place on behalf of that movement.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) was, as he said, involved in the initial Bill. 1-le referred to the relatively small sum of money involved. However, I must refer him to the remarks of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who, sadly, is not in his place, when he announced the Labour Government's intention to set up the CDA. He said:
After this formative period, during which the Agency should develop its own sense of corporate purpose, its finances will be expected to derive essentially from voluntary contributions from the co-operative movement and income generated by the charging of fees for the Agency's services."—[Official Report, 6 April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 756.]
At that time the hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that public funding for the entire agency costs would not be necessary after the initial three-year setting-up period.
Immediately this Government came into power, we realised that there was no short-term chance of the CDA becoming self-financing and in 1981 we made available another £1.5 million. That was a considerable contribution and there was another contribution in 1984. No one can say that the Government have not made finance available over a considerable period.

Mr. Alan Williams: The Minister must be careful not to misrepresent what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said. It was never envisaged that the CDA would be self-financing after three years. In the original financial provision, which I made when I was in Japan on an inward investment programme at the time of the Second Reading debate, we made an initial provision of £1.5 million, of which £0.9 million was available in the first three years. Therefore, we had already made provision in the original Act to go beyond three years and, as I said in Committee or on Third Reading, we intended to review that at the end of the three years and extra financial provision was built into the Bill.

Mr. Eggar: I am sorry if the hon. Member for Bradford, South went beyond the brief that the right hon. Gentleman gave him. I can only comment on what the hon. Gentleman said at that time.
Opposition Members, many of whom are sponsored co-op members, will be close readers of the Co-operative News and will have read the comments that appeared in its editorial on 19 December 1989. It said:
The Co-operative Movement is also being called upon to put up money for the Co-operative Forum, to help with the transitional period that will follow the end of the CDA—and so it should. Sadly, however, this seems to evade the real question, which is: what is the Movement doing to recreate, from its own resources, a body that will continue the work of the CDA? With the hindsight of the last decade, it can be seen that it was an error to allow the Co-operative Development Agency to become dependent on Government largesse.
The last paragraph of the editorial says:
The threat to the future of the CDA has, in fact, provided an opportunity for the traditional Movement to pull back the worker co-operatives into the mainstream. Hands would have to dig into pockets—but the rewards would be the dignity of self-help instead of the humiliation of passing the begging-bowl round Whitehall.

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 180.

Division No. 33]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Bob


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Amos, Alan
Eggar, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baldry, Tony
Fishburn, John Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Freeman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
French, Douglas


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gale, Roger


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardiner, George


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bowis, John
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brazier, Julian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butterfill, John
Harris, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Carttiss, Michael
Janman, Tim


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knowles, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knox, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dicks, Terry
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dover, Den
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Ryder, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maclean, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Madel, David
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mans, Keith
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maples, John
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Sir Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Temple-Morris, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trippier, David


Nelson, Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Neubert, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Norris, Steve
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard
Ward, John


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Sir John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Redwood, John
Yeo, Tim


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Rowe, Andrew



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Alton, David
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Anderson, Donald
Clay, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clelland, David


Armstrong, Hilary
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Coleman, Donald


Beckett, Margaret
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bidwell, Sydney
Cousins, Jim


Blair, Tony
Cox, Tom


Blunkett, David
Crowther, Stan


Boateng, Paul
Cryer, Bob


Boyes, Roland
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Dalyell, Tarn


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Darling, Alistair


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Buckley, George J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Caborn, Richard
Dewar, Donald


Callaghan, Jim
Dixon, Don


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Doran, Frank


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Dunnachie, Jimmy






Eadie, Alexander
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Nellist, Dave


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
O'Brien, William


Fraser, John
O'Neill, Martin


Fyfe, Maria
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Parry, Robert


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Pike, Peter L.


George, Bruce
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Randall, Stuart


Grocott, Bruce
Redmond, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Reid, Dr John


Hinchliffe, David
Robertson, George


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Sheerman, Barry


Illsley, Eric
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Ingram, Adam
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Short, Clare


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lambie, David
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lamond, James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Leighton, Ron
Soley, Clive


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Steinberg, Gerry


Litherland, Robert
Stott, Roger


Livingstone, Ken
Strang, Gavin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Straw, Jack


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McAllion, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Wallace, James


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McFall, John
Wareing, Robert N.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McLeish, Henry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McNamara, Kevin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McWilliam, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wilson, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Winnick, David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Worthington, Tony


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Martyn Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Co-operative Development Agency (Winding-up and Dissolution) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

PETITIONS

Ambulance Dispute

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I am pleased and proud to present a petition organised by the ambulance trade unions in Yorkshire in support of their claim, arid their request that it be put to independent arbitration.
The 40,000 signatures attached to the petition are an addition to the 5 million—an all-time record, I understand—attached to the petition presented before Christmas by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). I know that the people of Yorkshire have been queueing up to show their support for the ambulance crews and to give money, and I only hope that the Government will take some notice of the contents of the petition and the number of signatures attached to it.

The petition reads:
That the ambulance dispute is in need of urgent resolution. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House urge the Secretary of State for Health to use the good offices of ACAS and agree to arbitration in order to end this unnecessary dispute: and urge the Secretary of State to provide a pay formula for the ambulance service similar to that for the other emergency services.

To lie upon the Table.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I wish to present a petition supporting the ambulance workers, which has been signed by 40,000 members of the public in west Yorkshire, including many of my own constituents as well as people from the neighbouring constituency of Calder Valley.
That the ambulance workers' case is just has been recognised by everyone except, possibly, the Prime Minister and one or two sycophantic Ministers. That they have behaved impeccably in the face of massive provocation is indisputable, and I urge the Government to listen to the people of this country and to end this unnecessary dispute. I do not intend to repeat the words in the petition, but I think that everyone recognises that it is time that justice was done, and time that the suffering that the Government are causing the workers and the public came to an end.

To lie upon the Table.

Cyprus

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Michael Knowles: The case that I intend to make this evening is that Britain's policy towards Cyprus has been mistaken for many years. I came across a quotation that sums up the beginning and the end of the problem in Cyprus. It comes from the memoirs of Glafkos Clerides, one of the more liberal and far-sighted Greek Cypriot leaders. He said:
In reality, the opportunity for a settlement was lost not only because of our refusal to give the Turkish community autonomy in local government but because Makarios continued after seven years of hard struggle at home and abroad to hold the view that the Turkish Cypriots being a minority on the island should be reduced from the position of partners given to them by the Zurich and London agreements to that of enjoying only minority rights.
That was Archbishop Makarios's policy. It was also President Kyprianou's policy. It is not President Vassiliou's policy. That is the problem. The Greek Cypriots want the Turkish Cypriots to accept that they are a minority. The Turkish Cypriots say that there has to be a bi-communal republic, as provided for in the London and Zurich agreements of 1960. A bi-communal republic was founded, with reserve powers for both communities.
The reason was simple. There never was and there never had been a Cypriot nation. There were two communities, both looking to their motherlands. One suspects that Archbishop Makarios did not sign that agreement believing that it was final. He signed it in the belief that it was only an interim measure, on the way to the final achievement of Enosis. He believed in that all his life.
The Akritas plan for the overthrow of the republic was formulated and adhered to. In April 1963, the supreme constitutional court in Cyprus ruled illegal Greek Cypriot amendments to the law relating to municipalities. The Greek Cypriot executive ignored the ruling and overrode it. Consequently, the neutral German president, Dr. Ernst Fortshoff, resigned. At that point, constitutionality and the rule of law in the republic of Cyprus ended. Everything else flowed from that.
At that time, the guarantor powers did nothing, and the Akritas plan proceeded to unfold. In November 1963, Archbishop Makarios presented his 13-part proposals to amend the constitution. The amendments consisted of removing all the Turkish Cypriot safeguards. Needless to say, the Turkish Cypriots refused to accept them. In December, what was proclaimed to be a double Christmas for the Greek Cypriots took place. There was an all-out attack by Greek Cypriot forces and EOKA gunmen on the whole of the Turkish Cypriot community.
The facts are recorded in the Select Committee's report: that 103 villages were destroyed, that there were 27,000 refugees, that there were hundreds of hostages and that people were murdered—we do not know how many. At that point the plan faltered. The Turkish Cypriots were not destroyed immediately. They managed to fight back. Makarios appealed to the United Nations, thus involving the United Nations. The result was that all Turkish Cypriot representatives in the organs of state were expelled—by force in many cases. The Greek Cypriots unilaterally abrogated the constitution and abolished all Turkish Cypriot safeguards and rights.
In April, the President of the republic, Archbishop Makarios, denounced the treaties establishing the republic. From that moment, there was a de facto division of the island. From possessing 30 per cent. of the island, the Turkish Cypriots were confined to about 30 ghettos covering only 3 per cent. of the island. They were under an economic embargo; they were starved. If they ventured outside, they were shot.
The violence flared over 11 years from 1963 to 1974, and the guarantor powers did not intervene. Finally, when Archbishop Makarios was toppled by a coup instigated by the Greek colonels and wholesale slaughter—Nicos Sampson, a well-known EOKA gunman—

Sir Antony Buck: Perhaps my hon. Friend will agree with me that Nicos Sampson caused us enough difficulty during the period to which he is referring. That the Turks should have had to consider being ruled by a regime headed by Nicos Sampson causes one to have the greatest sympathy with the Turkish side of the question.

Mr. Knowles: My hon. and learned Friend is correct.
The Turks intervened; they landed. That was a warning, but the Greek Cypriot attacks did not cease. After the Turkish forces had landed, the inhabitants of five villages were slaughtered. I know that some of my hon. Friends have seen the memorials. Everyone, from six-week-old babies to 85-year-old women, was butchered in cold blood. In Famagusta, the entire Turkish Cypriot population were threatened with massacre. So the Turkish forces rolled on.
I am not sure what the British Government expected then to happen. It seems that, once the ceasefire line had been established, they expected the Turkish Cypriots happily to return to the rule of the Greek Cypriots under an illegal republic whose constitution had been illegally amended. Instead, the Turkish forces stayed to safeguard the Turkish Cypriots. During the following year, an exchange of population took place. Shortly afterwards, the Turkish Cypriots established their part of the federal state, which was what they were after.
The British Government's reaction was to continue to recognise the republic of Cyprus—the Greek Cypriot two thirds of the country—as the legal Government, although it was the Greek Cypriots who had instigated the destruction of the republic. They were rewarded by continuing to be recognised as the legal Government and the Turkish Cypriots were ignored. How were the Turkish Cypriots supposed to survive? They decided to form their own state, which we did not recognise. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will make the point that no other country has done so apart from Turkey. In all justice, I do not see that the Turkish Cypriots could have done anything else.
There were eight years of negotiations, primarily with President Kyprianou, which led nowhere. Finally, in 1983, the Turkish Cypriots decided that they had to declare their independence, and they founded the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I fail to see what else they could have done in the circumstances. The 1960 constitution was dead; it had been abrogated by the Greek Cypriots. We could not expect the Turkish Cypriots voluntarily to return to Greek Cypriot rule, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that we could.
The problem has been well summarised by one writer on Cyprus:
The Turks can't forget and the Greeks can't remember.


If one talks to Greek Cypriots about the days before 1974, they paint Cyprus as an idyllic island. That may have been the position for the Greek Cypriots, but it was not for the Turkish Cypriots. The Turks, however, will not go back to Greek Cypriot rule. They have a lower standard of living in the north than is the case in the south, but friends of mine in northern Cyprus have put the case to me. In many instances they lost great wealth, lands and houses, but they say, "At least our children can play outside; they are not going to be shot."
A powerful argument must be advanced to overcome that degree of fear. The tragedy is that the Greek Cypriots did not look at a map. Cyprus is 40 miles from Turkey but 400 miles from Greece; they forgot that simple reality.
Could any Turkish Government have ignored what was happening on Cyprus? They were legally justified as a guarantor power to the 1960 agreements to bring their forces on to the island. Apart from that, could any Government 40 milies away have ignored the potential slaughter of 150,000 Turkish Cypriots? One remembers the reaction to the threat to 1,800 inhabitants of the Falkland Islands 8,000 miles away, so one can imagine the pressure on the Turkish Government. Any Turkish Government in a similar position would have had no choice but to intervene.
A story has been put about that, somehow, a trade-off for Turkey's entry into the European Community could be the withdrawal of its troops from Cyprus. I recall—I should he glad of the confirmation of my hon. Friend the Minister on this—that there was a trilateral agreement between the Community, Turkey and Greece that Greece would not use its influence when Turkey's entry was discussed.
There are worrying factors at present. There has been an enormous Greek Cypriot arms build-up in the south and full conscription with reserves of 80,000 men. I do not ignore the possibility of further armed conflict. If a single Turkish soldier is a threat to the Greek Cypriots—those are the terms in which they think—he is the only acceptable guarantee to Turkish Cypriots, because when they were being slaughtered, the only country that cared and the only country that sent troops was Turkey. Without a Turkish guarantee, I cannot foresee the Turkish Cypriots reaching agreement.
Is it the Government's view that the 1960 treaties and constitution are still in force? If so, what pressure have we exerted on the Greek Cypriots to declare null and void their unilateral amendments to the constitution? If that is not our position, why do we not recognise the two republics? Once the 1960 republic and constitution had been destroyed, either both remaining parts of Cyprus were illegal regimes or they were both legal regimes. We adopted an illogical position by recognising only one and not the other. I seriously question whether we got it right. I suspect that, at that time, the British Government hoped that their action would bring about a settlement, but after almost 30 years we must ask whether that was realistic or correct.
If the Secretary-General of the United Nations can meet the leaders of both communities, why cannot Foreign Office Ministers? We say that we support the Secretary-General's position, but do we if we meet the leader of only one community? Foreign Office Ministers should meet President Vassiliou and President Denktash. If my hon. Friend the Minister believes that the 1960 constitution is still in force and we do not recognise both republics,

President Denktash must be recognised as the vice-president of the republic of Cyprus, which was his position under that constitution.
It seems to me that we have got ourselves into a logical impasse. The Greek Cypriots say that they are in favour of restoring the partnership and want to be friends with the Turkish Cypriots. Yet the Turkish Cypriots have seen nothing but unremitting hostility since 1963. There are attempts to destroy the economy, embargoes, pressure on flights and violent attacks on the United Nations forces on the green line.
Another worry is the Greek Cypriots' view of President Denktash. I do not know whether they believe it, but they portray President Denktash as a personal obstacle to a settlement. I believe that the absolute reverse is the truth. He remembers Cyprus as one island. He has friends who are Greek Cypriots. Anyone who is a great deal younger than him is not in that position. If this generation of leaders cannot reach an agreement, I am not sure that an agreement can be reached.
The Government must be clear on several points. If the Turkish Cypriots are not treated as partners and if equality is denied, there can be no federation on Cyprus. If there is no federation, the two former partners will live separately. Any peaceful settlement must take notice of the basic anxieties of both sides.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): This has been a useful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles) and I congratulate him on raising the issue. He speaks about the issue with a good deal of knowledge. I know that he has studied it carefully and knows Cyprus well. He has a particular understanding and knowledge of northern Cyprus. He has deployed his case temperately and moderately and that is valuable.
Inevitably, a good deal of what my hon. Friend said involved the history of this troubled island. Sadly, the sense of history in Cyprus is predominant. Memories are long and people in both communities have not forgotten the history that led the island to its present condition.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate my remarks not on the history of the island, but on the present position and prospects for improvement. We must focus our attention on that. My hon. Friend asked questions, quite properly, about the Government's position and about the possibilities for the island, to which I shall endeavour to give answers. It is right that this matter should be aired in the House and that the views of both communities are ventilated so that the House can understand the issues fully.
The last time that the House debated this subject was on 26 May 1989 in an Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). Regrettably, there has been little positive movement since then. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office said in that debate, we believed that the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus, President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash, had negotiated with a degree of flexibility up to that point. He called on them to show yet more flexibility and imagination, with more of the spirit of compromise, to


crown the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts with success, to re-unite the Republic of Cyprus and to remove a cause of instability in the eastern Mediterranean.
My right hon. Friend registered our strong hope that the two leaders could agree on a draft outline settlement before their next meeting with the Secretary-General. That joint meeting took place on 29 June. Sadly, it had proved impossible beforehand to agree the terms of an outline. Nevertheless, the meeting took place in a cordial atmosphere. The Secretary-General noted that the ideas discussed with the two leaders up to that point offered a real possibility of bridging the positions of the two sides. He sought and obtained their agreement to continue their work on the outline, with a view to a further joint meeting with him in the autumn.
But here we are, six months later, and the two leaders have yet to resume their face-to-face talks under United Nations auspices. It is right that we should ask ourselves and endeavour to answer the question, what went wrong?
First, there were the unfortunate events of 19 July, just a week before Mr. Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash were due to hold the first meeting in the new round of the talks. I shall not rehearse the story of those events in detail to those of my hon. Friends present, nor to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) who is just about present with us. Those matters are familiar to the House.
Suffice it to say that Greek Cypriot demonstrators, many of them violent, were allowed to penetrate the United Nations buffer zone in the heart of Nicosia, where the zone is wide enough to take a couple of vehicles only. They overwhelmed the small contingent of the United Nations force, which did not know in advance where the demonstrators would be, and entered an area whose status remains at issue between the United Nations force on the one hand and the Turkish Cypriot authorities and Turkish military on the other.
The House will recall that members of the security forces on the Turkish side then entered the scene en masse, and the upshot was the arrest, trial and detention of more than 100 Greek Cypriots in gaols in the north. Most of those were released fairly quickly, but the last, including the bishop of Kitium, did not return to the south until the end of July. These events could hardly have made the atmosphere for resumption of the intercommunal talks worse.
Secondly, we saw a dispute about the status of the draft outline settlement which the United Nations had prepared in close consultation with the leaders of the two communities. That, too, is now history. But I must say that the claim by one side that the draft had been prepared in contravention of the understandings that the Secretary General had reached with the two leaders does not square with the facts as we understand them. We made our views clear in a statement on 24 August.
I much regret that those events should have served to undermine the good progress which had certainly been made up to that time. Much constructive work was done up to June, and I give the credit for that to both sides.
I hope that that effort and the good will expended on that process will not prove to have been wasted, and that the ideas in the UN paper, which the House should remember was submitted to the two sides as food for

thought to aid their discussions—not as a formal UN proposal—should continue to be available to be drawn upon by both sides when the talks resume.
The emphasis must now be on where we go from here. The signposts are clearly marked in the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council before the council's debate on renewal of the UN force mandate on 14 December. It summarises recent developments, dispassionately and factually, and I commend it to the House. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library. In it the Secretary-General describes his separate meetings with the two leaders in October and again at the end of November and early December.
At the most recent round of meetings the Secretary-General invited both parties to attend an extended session of talks with him in February to agree on the headings for a draft outline settlement, and to proceed to negotiate its terms. He suggested that those headings should include a joint statement underlining the close relationship between the negotiating process and the overall atmosphere in which the negotiations took place and in which the two leaders would indicate their willingness
to promote in words and in deeds reconciliation and mutual trust between the two communities".
The Secretary-General went on to report:
President Vassiliou stated his willingness to proceed along the lines suggested. As regards a joint statement, he did not reject the preparation of such a statement at the appropriate time, adding that it should not detract from the agreed objective of arriving at an overall agreement.
Mr. Denktash stressed the need first to agree on a joint declaration of intent on the relationship between the two communities and then to discuss the headings of an outline.
We take no view on what the terms of that joint statement might be. But I believe that the proper place to go into that is at the face-to-face talks between Mr. Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash, when at last those talks resume. That was very much in our minds when we contributed to the drafting of a statement in the name of the Security Council which was issued on 14 December. I have also arranged for a copy of that to be placed in the Library.
In line with that statement, I strongly urge both sides to co-operate with the United Nations, with a view to restarting the talks as soon as possible. I see every advantage in the Secretary-General's proposal to reconvene the talks in February. Certainly a resumption should not be left until after the internal elections to be held in the north, which will inevitably preoccupy Mr. Denktash and his colleagues in the Turkish Cypriot leadership from the spring to mid-summer. That is too long to wait. A settlement is achievable and overdue. It would be distressing if the island of Cyprus had to wait that long for further progress to be made. We also hope that neither side will put preconditions of any sort in the way, or say or do anything that would sour the atmosphere again.
Our concern is simple and unchanging. It is to promote, in whatever way we can, a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement to the dispute. In doing so, we recognise as cardinal that no settlement can endure if it does not enjoy the support of both Cypriot communities. An agreement that ignored the fundamental concerns of one community would be no agreement at all.
In our own dealings, as the House will be aware, our aim is to be scrupulously even-handed towards each community. We follow that approach to the limit.


However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East and other hon. Friends accept, our policy of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus and nonrecognition of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus imposes limits on what we can do.
I want to talk about the future, but I shall take this opportunity, as my hon. Friend suggested, to restate the Government's view that the 1960 treaties remain in force.
I have listened carefully to the case made by my hon. Friend and assure him that we shall continue to give full weight to the interests and legitimate aspirations of the—

Sir Antony Buck: rose—

Mr. Maude: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I do not give way because I have only three minutes left and I wish to cover the other points of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East.
We continue, as we have consistently done, to give full weight to the interests and aspirations of the Turkish Cypriot community. However, there can be no prospect of any change in our basic policy on recognition of the TRNC. Our purpose is, and must remain, to promote reconciliation and not to perpetuate division.
It sometimes seems that proponents of such a change in our policy on recognition feel that it is we who are out of step, not the Turkish Cypriots. But I remind them that the entire international community, with the exception of Turkey, takes the same view as us.
Let no one think that, if the current UN-sponsored negotiations fail to achieve progress within a reasonable time span, we and the rest of the world will be content to see the status quo solidify or that we will slowly move towards recognition of the Turkish Cypriot state. That could not possibly lead to a lasting settlement.
Maintenance of the status quo is simply not a tenable option in the long term, and it is the ordinary Turkish Cypriots who will suffer most from prolonged delay in moving to a settlement. It is sometimes argued—as my hon. Friend argued—that our policy cannot be even-handed if we deny to Mr. Denktash the access to Ministers which President Vassiliou enjoys. I am familiar with that argument.
However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the previous Adjournment debate, Mr. Denktash made it difficult for us to give him the access that he used to have when the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was declared in November 1983.
I repeat also that we do not rule out for ever a meeting between Mr. Denktash and a British Minister. Of course, I would consider one if I was satisfied that it would materially assist the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in Cyprus. But those conditions do not yet apply—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.